Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[Dr Kynes]

considering that the GMO food labeling initiative flopped like a soggy mattress i gotta wonder how you figure this kind of junk law will pass?

when you pander to so many groups all at once (and proudly declare it "cross connecting") anyone with two braincells to rub together will easily detect the attempt to pander.

Corporation Hateration + New Age Religious Word Salad + "Intelligent Design" Word Salad + Eco-Fearmongering + Marxist Rhetoric + Anarcho-Occupier Dogwhistles + Irrational Demands = Law Written by Toucan Sam with his mind on his Froot Loops and his Five Fruity Flavours on his mind.

 

[canndo]

After reading through this thread, I am left with a simple question: Why ban genetic engineering? I see nothing but good coming from it. The worry that a bacterial gene inserted into a plant, or animal, or human is "unnatural" strikes me as absurd. All life arose from the same soup. We all share the same genetics.

The knee jerk hatred of Monsanto is occu-tard silliness. The claim that all of this genetic engineering has resulted in nothing useful is laughable; why would anybody buy GM corn seeds if they were not useful?

And the final bottom line is this: the genie is out of the bottle and she is not going to be put back in the bottle by a bunch of superstitious Luddites.

I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.

Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.

Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.

 

[canndo]

I encounter a hell of a lot of people who are perfectly willing to trust science when it comes to genetic engineering "why they must know what they are doing" "leave it up to those who are most capable of making those decisions" - and yet when I ask those very same people if they believe in Global warming they are certain that scientists are lying in order to garner their grant money or for the power of the scare placed upon the general public.


So Scientists lie, except when they don't

 

[Dr Kynes]

I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.

Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.

Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.

genie bottles are single occupancy, by law and custom.

i believe you would do better reaching for Pandora's Box.

for the small farmer in india boll weevil resistant cotton has kept them from being forced to sell out to agricorps who can afford the pesticides needed to keep the cotton crop in motion.
india's court ruling that farmers may save seed does NOT help the big producers since their model is dependent on buying seed rather than collecting and saving the seeds from last year's crops. this has been the big farm model with ALL crops since the advent of mechanized farming.

big operators need the consistency and certainty that only purchased seed can deliver, even most small farmers buy their seeds in developed nations because it's less risky, even backyard gardeners buy seeds rather than replanting, only a very few save seeds, and even then it's usually to protect some particular cultivar.

as a pothead im sure you recognize the fundamental difference between purchased seeds from a good seed provider and random bagseed. i doubt theres a stoner in this forum who plants bagseed for any reason other than being too cheap to buy a commercial seed.

the randomness found in naturally pollinated dope makes it inherently questionable. will it be dirt weed? will it be sickly? will it be hermi'ed out and useless? will it autoflower or will i need to switch the lighting schedule? will it be more pungent than my filtration system will support? will it grow freakishly huge in my closet? will it remain tiny in my backyard? all these questions are far more serious when your mortgage rests on the answers, or you might get the boot from the board if profits drop.

even so, nobody HAS to buy GMO seeds, and GM seeds are not a threat to the ecosystem, since the GMO plants are domestic plants, not wild foliage on the hillside.

im a little concerned about the GMO fish, but they are intended for fish ranches, not wild release. honestly i get tired of the anti-corporation rants on every issue imaginable. corporations are not so new that you dont know what to expect, and they are not the evil supervillain behind every plot to destabilize your life. if a particular corporation or industry is out of control, then argue for regulations on the industy, demanding the disbanding of every corporate enterprise because BP spilled some oil or AIG floated some bad bets just makes you sound wacky.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I encounter a hell of a lot of people who are perfectly willing to trust science when it comes to genetic engineering "why they must know what they are doing" "leave it up to those who are most capable of making those decisions" - and yet when I ask those very same people if they believe in Global warming they are certain that scientists are lying in order to garner their grant money or for the power of the scare placed upon the general public.


So Scientists lie, except when they don't

scientiusts arent the ones selling global warming/climate change,, the hucksters are doing that.

the hucksters are selling a bill of goods, and driving a campaign of terror through washington (and london, and berlin, and paris....) whereby the political morons think that theres a crisis and they start throwing our money around.

the british squirrel researcher i've mentioned before didt add "global warming" to his squirrel study application for greed, he actually believes studyying the mating habits o british ground squirrels is important. thats why he dedicated his life to the study of fucking squirrels. he has a squirrel-centric world view, and as such he sees a little fib to get his important squirrel research started as a positive step, since it advances the agenda of the rodent research society.

he used the fear campaign to get his squirrel study going, but he didnt start it, the assholes who started it, like al gore, greenpeace, and that asshole who claimed we were gonna have an iceage in the 70s, and now says the opposite did. THEY are the liars.

the national academy of sciences says on global warming/climate change: "needs more study" which is exactly what they say about EVERYTHING except ghosts, demonic possession and bigfoot. at best you can infer that the national academy of sciences doesnt believe global warming is the result of delusions, bad acid, or rednecks in gorilla suits.

read this if you dare.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336

 

[cannabineer]

I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.

Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.

Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.

Canndo, I am startled to see such naked moralizing from one of our more levelheaded forum participants. The introduction of bacterial genetics and their associated useful machinery is not only part of nature, but a hinge in the evolutionary story. Animals require the mitochondrion, and plants add the chloroplast to this ... a domesticated cyanobacterium without which the land would not be green.

So I must ask: by what doctrine, on whose moral authority do you declare interphyletic gene splicing to be monstrous?

I do think however that you have, for better or worse, highlighted a main engine of the anti-GM movement. GM organisms occupy the exact spot on the stage of moral consciousness once held by Mary Shelley's monster. People recoiled in unnecessary horror from that quiltwork human, and they do now in the presence of Wundergrain. All that's missing from this heady stew of base drives is an Ursula Andress lookalike in scanty wraps and bondage gear. cn

 

[curious2garden]

........snip........polymerase chain reaction we can Xerox a few trillion copies.......snip......

Seriously, you thought I didn't understand PCR amplification? Thank you. The place I lose it is at the selection of the different scission agents.

........snip....... non-eficacy resons........snip.......

canndo your arguments overall are good. But you ruin them by the misspellings.

-------------------------------------
Back to the legislation argument.

My problem is who will watch? The FDA has done such a stellar job that by now many seniors in the US have to choose whether to eat or take their prescription medicine. We are still fighting over Cannabis being Schedule 1. This fight began in 1972 and we are STILL AT IT! This group more than any other has been hurt by 'feel good' legislation. So I find it frightening that anyone in the affected class would request more of the same.

Yes mixing bacterial DNA and human DNA has risks, large risks. So did vaccinations and space travel and every step along the way of progress there has been grave risk and loss of life. Possibly we shouldn't have harnessed fire. That has caused serious loss of life since it's 'discovery'.

This will be no different but with 7 billion people resident on this planet I think we have a bit of a buffer there. Worse I think unless we ramp up faster and play a little less safe we may all simply suffocate here.

So we want to hamstring the scientists with our emotional reactions thinking this will stop the businesses? The big businesses, will buy their way out of ANY legislation we make as they historically have done. So we better hope the university scientists are sort of keeping up to save us. I could go on and on but it doesn't matter. Oh and if you think there is any other way to understand the human epigenome than reverse engineering of it well I despair.

Finally if you don't like direct genetic engineering then you really aren't going to like the melding of man and machine that's going on. LOL we should probably quickly legislate against that too.

Anyway it's time for me to leave Politics. I just can't bear watching the trainwreck. Enjoy.

 

[desert dude]

genie bottles are single occupancy, by law and custom.

i believe you would do better reaching for Pandora's Box.

for the small farmer in india boll weevil resistant cotton has kept them from being forced to sell out to agricorps who can afford the pesticides needed to keep the cotton crop in motion.
india's court ruling that farmers may save seed does NOT help the big producers since their model is dependent on buying seed rather than collecting and saving the seeds from last year's crops. this has been the big farm model with ALL crops since the advent of mechanized farming.

big operators need the consistency and certainty that only purchased seed can deliver, even most small farmers buy their seeds in developed nations because it's less risky, even backyard gardeners buy seeds rather than replanting, only a very few save seeds, and even then it's usually to protect some particular cultivar.

as a pothead im sure you recognize the fundamental difference between purchased seeds from a good seed provider and random bagseed. i doubt theres a stoner in this forum who plants bagseed for any reason other than being too cheap to buy a commercial seed.

the randomness found in naturally pollinated dope makes it inherently questionable. will it be dirt weed? will it be sickly? will it be hermi'ed out and useless? will it autoflower or will i need to switch the lighting schedule? will it be more pungent than my filtration system will support? will it grow freakishly huge in my closet? will it remain tiny in my backyard? all these questions are far more serious when your mortgage rests on the answers, or you might get the boot from the board if profits drop.

even so, nobody HAS to buy GMO seeds, and GM seeds are not a threat to the ecosystem, since the GMO plants are domestic plants, not wild foliage on the hillside.

im a little concerned about the GMO fish, but they are intended for fish ranches, not wild release. honestly i get tired of the anti-corporation rants on every issue imaginable. corporations are not so new that you dont know what to expect, and they are not the evil supervillain behind every plot to destabilize your life. if a particular corporation or industry is out of control, then argue for regulations on the industy, demanding the disbanding of every corporate enterprise because BP spilled some oil or AIG floated some bad bets just makes you sound wacky.

If you are referring to the salmon that grow twice as big, then there is no worry about them mating with wild fish. They are intentionally created "triploid", i.e. three chromosomes instead of the natural diploid, and sterile.

 

[NLXSK1]

If you are referring to the salmon that grow twice as big, then there is no worry about them mating with wild fish. They are intentionally created "triploid", i.e. three chromosomes instead of the natural diploid, and sterile.

That worked out so well for the people in Jurassic Park....

 

[NLXSK1]

I am not going to try to say that I am knowledgeable about genetic engineering or modification but I certainly have some concerns.

Accidents happen. People died while scientists created the Atomic bomb. They were accidents....

What I fear is that through accidental or purposeful action, some of the genetic modifications get into the *wild* and cause unintended consequences that were not forseen by the scientists. These consequences might or might not turn out to be financially profitable as the companies provide the *cure* for whatever happened.

 

[desert dude]

I don't think you grasp the magnitude of the problem Desert Dude, and your upside down a argument is falacious. There are any number of non-eficacy resons for folks to buy and use gmo seeds.. The end result is the end user. We see very little benefit to that end user, most of the pecieved benifits are from B2B applications and nothing more.

Bacterial genetics being inserted into plants is a monstrosity and it is not covered under nature. The soup you speak of was a long and undifferentiated time, organsisms since then have spent millions of years makeing those differenctiations even more distinct.

Claiming that one genie is out of the bottle so what the hell, let's let the rest of them out is a rather dangerous bit of side reasoninng that may well come back and bite us in ways we cannot comprehend.

"Critics say that GM-crops only benefit the big seed manufacturers. What is your experience?
Well if you look at pest resistant GM cotton in Burkina Faso, the experience is quite positive. If you compare the local, non-modified cotton to the genetically modified variety you see a yield increase of about 30 percent. The increase changes with the pest challenge, the more insects the greater the difference you will see.
The use of insecticides, and therefore costs for the farmers, decreases as well. Normally you have to spray six times, with the GM cotton you have to spray about two times. This also benefits the health of the farmers handling the insecticides."
http://www.knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?503/will-gm-crops-feed-africa

 

[DNAprotection]

considering that the GMO food labeling initiative flopped like a soggy mattress i gotta wonder how you figure this kind of junk law will pass?

when you pander to so many groups all at once (and proudly declare it "cross connecting") anyone with two braincells to rub together will easily detect the attempt to pander.

Corporation Hateration + New Age Religious Word Salad + "Intelligent Design" Word Salad + Eco-Fearmongering + Marxist Rhetoric + Anarcho-Occupier Dogwhistles + Irrational Demands = Law Written by Toucan Sam with his mind on his Froot Loops and his Five Fruity Flavours on his mind.

Why I wrote the DNA Protection Act of 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU

1minute 23seconds

I guess one could say that I'm just a scout doing recon and then reporting back to those I serve.
For me its all just simply about duty and responsibility to the 'herd' if you will.
As long as I do my part and report back and do all I can with objectivity to 'do the right thing', then I can pass on/over with a clean conscience, or as clean as possible lol...

 

[OGEvilgenius]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

forbes magazine does a fine job of tearing the cancermouse study to shreds.

trenchant criticism is trenchant

The sample size is a legit criticism with that species. The results still shouldn't be ignored, they should attempt repeating in a better model.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

"Golden Rice". Genetically engineered to make beta carotene, a vitamin A precursor. Illegal to grow in California under your proposed law.

Salmon that grow at twice the rate as "natural" salmon. Illegal to grow in California.

California is the largest agricultural state in the US. Outlawing GM crops will severely damage California's already politically damaged economy.

""The world is undergoing dramatic change and it won't be long before people are thinking 'where is my next meal coming from?' Where GM has been proved effective at either increasing yields or else resistant to diseases it should be used in the UK. GM crops need to be looked at one by one. They are not the only solution to world hunger but they are part of it."


The report entitled Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture, was commissioned in July 2008 in response to a UN report which predicted that world food production needs to double by 2050 to sustain a global population expected to reach nine billion. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6359130/Britain-will-starve-without-GM-crops-says-major-report.html

"How important are GM crops in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Most of the traditional food crops we use in Africa are not benefiting from GM interventions yet. The GM crops used are mostly products from developed nations like maize, soybeans, canola, and cotton.

But things are moving. There is a cassava plant virus that is resistant to conventional treatments. GM varieties that can handle this virus are in a field trial stage and might be available in four to five years.
Cowpeas are another example. They are one of the most important crops in West Africa and an important source of protein. But yields suffer a lot from an insect pest called Maruca. Farmers do a lot of spraying to contain this, but still lose out. Field trials with GM cowpeas that are resistant to the Maruca larvae have just started in Ghana, Nigeria, and Burkina Faso. In two to three years, farmers should be able to use these improved varieties."
http://www.knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?503/will-gm-crops-feed-africa

Meanwhile farmers in India who made the switch found reduced yields, less resistance to pests and are now committing suicide in record numbers. Do you work for Monsanto? Because this is a company found guilty many times over of blatant deception, lies and has a chemical history that is unbelievably horrible. Their own studies have been found deceptive on GMOs.

I'd also love to see at what cost these Salmon grow at a 50% increased rate. Nutrition? Depletion of environment? I wonder what it is. Unknown protein creation (toxic potentially)?

Kirk Azevedo (former employee with a conscience) came out and told him a scientist had said to him that their Cotton produced unknown and untested proteins, not a surprise given the complexity of the systems they mess with. It doesn't take much to suspect other crops could be doing the same.

And why does Monsanto refuse to serve their own creations in their cafeteria's?

Do you think life should be patented? Even if all of this is safe (and there's plenty of reason to believe otherwise given the lack of study and the deliberate attempts to mislead about what has been done), should life be patented? The answer is no, of course. Any other answer is going to lead me to believe you own stock in Monsanto or you're incredibly naive.

And why do you suppose Europe has roundly banned GMOs? Because the studies that supposedly illustrated safety, upon review, indicated the opposite.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

GMO agriculture is in its infantsy as a science

i don't think that its moral or ethical to just abuse the genetics code without long term studies on sociological and agricultural as well as economic effects for the future

with great power comes great responsibility . .i know cliche . . buts its true . . everyone thought DDT was the godsend as well

And they thought DDT was a godsend because Monsanto put out deliberately misleading studies indicating it's safety. Kind of just like what's happening today.

In 99 they were convicted of negligence, outrage, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass as well as ordered to pay 700,000,000 to the residents of Anniston Alabama because they had poisoned the hell out of them with PCBs.

What exactly is outrage in Alabama law? It describes actions “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

Definitely a trustworthy company. Let's take their studies at face value as they have an honest history. I'm even more pleased that their representatives embody the most powerful positions at the FDA as well.

 

[DNAprotection]

...

for the small farmer in india boll weevil resistant cotton has kept them from being forced to sell out to agricorps who can afford the pesticides needed to keep the cotton crop in motion.
india's court ruling that farmers may save seed does NOT help the big producers since their model is dependent on buying seed rather than collecting and saving the seeds from last year's crops. this has been the big farm model with ALL crops since the advent of mechanized farming.

big operators need the consistency and certainty that only purchased seed can deliver, even most small farmers buy their seeds in developed nations because it's less risky, even backyard gardeners buy seeds rather than replanting, only a very few save seeds, and even then it's usually to protect some particular cultivar.

...

[h=1]'Bitter Seeds' Film Tells of Suicide and GMO Effects on India's Farmers[/h]
"Every 30 minutes a farmer in India kills himself ..." This frightening fact is pointed out in "Bitter Seeds," the third documentary in "The Globalization Trilogy" directed by Micha Peled. The 12-year project aims to generate debate about public policy and consumer choices in some complex issues relevant to all of us. Peled is the founder of the nonprofit Teddy Bear Films, which he created to make issue-oriented films such as "Will My Mother Go Back to Berlin?" and "Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes to Town."

"Bitter Seeds" follows a season in a village in India from planting to harvest. There are three important stories in this film, each revolving around the multinational corporate takeover of India's seed market and the effect it has on farmers and farming all over India and the world.
Like most of his neighbors, the protagonist in the film, Ram Krishna, must engage a money-lender to pay for the mounting costs of modern farming; he puts his land up as collateral."

The article goes on...but hopefully you get the point.

 

[desert dude]

Meanwhile farmers in India who made the switch found reduced yields, less resistance to pests and are now committing suicide in record numbers. Do you work for Monsanto? Because this is a company found guilty many times over of blatant deception, lies and has a chemical history that is unbelievably horrible. Their own studies have been found deceptive on GMOs.

I'd also love to see at what cost these Salmon grow at a 50% increased rate. Nutrition? Depletion of environment? I wonder what it is. Unknown protein creation (toxic potentially)?

Kirk Azevedo (former employee with a conscience) came out and told him a scientist had said to him that their Cotton produced unknown and untested proteins, not a surprise given the complexity of the systems they mess with. It doesn't take much to suspect other crops could be doing the same.

And why does Monsanto refuse to serve their own creations in their cafeteria's?

Do you think life should be patented? Even if all of this is safe (and there's plenty of reason to believe otherwise given the lack of study and the deliberate attempts to mislead about what has been done), should life be patented? The answer is no, of course. Any other answer is going to lead me to believe you own stock in Monsanto or you're incredibly naive.

And why do you suppose Europe has roundly banned GMOs? Because the studies that supposedly illustrated safety, upon review, indicated the opposite.

Should "Golden Rice" be patentable? Yes, I think it should be. Otherwise, why would anybody create it?

Should a strain of cotton that gives a 30% increase in yield be patentable? Yes, it should be.

Should an author of a best selling book be allowed a copy right?

Suppose cannabis is completely legalized and Monsanto creates a strain that produces 20 pounds of high quality bud per plant. Should Monsanto be allowed a patent on that?

 

[desert dude]

And they thought DDT was a godsend because Monsanto put out deliberately misleading studies indicating it's safety. Kind of just like what's happening today.

In 99 they were convicted of negligence, outrage, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass as well as ordered to pay 700,000,000 to the residents of Anniston Alabama because they had poisoned the hell out of them with PCBs.

What exactly is outrage in Alabama law? It describes actions “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

Definitely a trustworthy company. Let's take their studies at face value as they have an honest history. I'm even more pleased that their representatives embody the most powerful positions at the FDA as well.

What the heck are you yammering about? Monsanto did not invent DDT.

 

[cannabineer]

Seriously, you thought I didn't understand PCR amplification? Thank you. The place I lose it is at the selection of the different scission agents.



canndo your arguments overall are good. But you ruin them by the misspellings.

-------------------------------------
Back to the legislation argument.

My problem is who will watch? The FDA has done such a stellar job that by now many seniors in the US have to choose whether to eat or take their prescription medicine. We are still fighting over Cannabis being Schedule 1. This fight began in 1972 and we are STILL AT IT! This group more than any other has been hurt by 'feel good' legislation. So I find it frightening that anyone in the affected class would request more of the same.

Yes mixing bacterial DNA and human DNA has risks, large risks. So did vaccinations and space travel and every step along the way of progress there has been grave risk and loss of life. Possibly we shouldn't have harnessed fire. That has caused serious loss of life since it's 'discovery'.

This will be no different but with 7 billion people resident on this planet I think we have a bit of a buffer there. Worse I think unless we ramp up faster and play a little less safe we may all simply suffocate here.

So we want to hamstring the scientists with our emotional reactions thinking this will stop the businesses? The big businesses, will buy their way out of ANY legislation we make as they historically have done. So we better hope the university scientists are sort of keeping up to save us. I could go on and on but it doesn't matter. Oh and if you think there is any other way to understand the human epigenome than reverse engineering of it well I despair.

Finally if you don't like direct genetic engineering then you really aren't going to like the melding of man and machine that's going on. LOL we should probably quickly legislate against that too.

Anyway it's time for me to leave Politics. I just can't bear watching the trainwreck. Enjoy.

Annie, I hope you know I wasn't targeting you or anyone specific with the expository bits. I didn't mean to offend.

And I viscerally agree with your feeling that we are better off removing the safeties and making a dash to secure our future as a technical civilization. We (some of us, to be more honest) need to get off this rock, and there is simply no way we as a species can acquire the necessary physiological adaptations in time without installing them. Spun habitats will be useful in the interim, but eventually ... Jmo. cn

 

[DNAprotection]

Annie, I hope you know I wasn't targeting you or anyone specific with the expository bits. I didn't mean to offend.

And I viscerally agree with your feeling that we are better off removing the safeties and making a dash to secure our future as a technical civilization. We (some of us, to be more honest) need to get off this rock, and there is simply no way we as a species can acquire the necessary physiological adaptations in time without installing them. Spun habitats will be useful in the interim, but eventually ... Jmo. cn

cb I don't at all deny that one top priority goal of our species must be to "get off this rock" as you wrote, but without learning the lessons, the hard lessons of the 'working for a living' bird and naturally evolving ourselves beyond all the traits you mentioned earlier in this thread, we would just be a 'bad seed' sprouting from earths womb. A bad seed is what came and infected this place they call 'north America' where it then spread just like the diseases it brought with it and causing the people who were already here to be either exterminated or the about 250,000 surviving natives who then were forced to devolve in order to adapt and survive in the 'new world'. Nature will not allow us to be born off 'this rock' until we are ready, and there are no short cuts cb, we haven't even evolved back to where people native to this land were before the 'new world'. For goodness sake everyone native to this land new the earth was round way back when Europeans were still insisting and legislating that the earth was flat. Natives needed only to 'stand in the place where they lived' and look to the sky observing the changes etc and common logic gets you the rest of the way.
The question should be, are we a good and ready seed yet to be born off 'this rock', and my answer would be no.
We can't cheat on this test cb, cheating will result in 'instant karma' lol putting us more backward and further to crawl before we can walk and then fly<3
We must fly to survive, but its not your generation who has earned the wings, but it is all of us that might help a future generation to take flight if we act responsibly and with conscience and with ultimate motives that are free off money material and self...being more concerned of what harm might be done than what is to be possibly 'gained' is one of the traits we must evolve beyond before we are 'good seed'.