The GMO / GE issue

January 3, 2004

I am writing this article from New Zealand, where the Genetic Engineering (GE) debate has been a hot topic over recent months. This is because the NZ Government has recently made the decision to allow, in principle, the planting of GE crops (etc) to proceed pretty much unhindered. This decision was made in spite of the fact that a very large proportion of the NZ population did not want GE crops to be allowed in this country. So much for democracy.

I am aware that this whole GMO issue has raised a lot of protest and resistance from many concerned people around the world. I am aware that it has also helped raise the level of consciousness around food, chemical based agriculture, organics, and the food - health connection. To me this all seems to be a life-giving outcome.

I am also aware that many people argue outright that GE is a "bad thing". There are many people that are fighting GE yet they seem to remain oblivious, or perhaps only vaguely aware, of the bigger picture from which GE has arisen. It is my intention to make an attempt at addressing these points.

I was having an excellent conversation with an old friend and my brother the other night. We were talking about the GE issue and the issue of health being affected by what a person eats. It was this debate that lead to me feeling inspired to write this article. No doubt I will update it as these thoughts and understandings consolidate over the coming weeks... or perhaps not.

GE is outright "bad and dangerous"

This is an attitude that many "anti-GE" people seem to have. I can understand why many people may feel this way, yet I would like to share another perspective.

I do not feel that GE is "bad" in and of itself. Rather I would like to suggest that it is the intention and motivation behind the development and use of GE technology that presents us with something that is either inherently "life-taking" or "life-giving" (I avoid the use of the terms "negative" and "positive" because in my experience these are relative terms that mean nothing in the greater scheme of things).

I would say that this applies to all technology. There are those people that suggest technology is inherently "bad", "negative", and perhaps "destructive". I do not go along with this idea. I would suggest that again, it is really about what the intention is behind the development and use of all such technology.

So back to the topic of GE. I ask the following questions:

• What companies are primarily pushing and promoting the development and use of GE within the environment and within the human scheme of things?
• What do these companies stand to gain from this?
• What are their intentions behind developing and promoting this technology?
• What are their ethics, codes of conduct, and the overall degree of enlightenment from which the "decision makers" are coming from?
• What degree of consciousness do they have around the nature of life and the planet Earth (as Gaia)?

Based on my research I would say that in general the answers to these questions (in the same order) are:

• These companies are primarily large, multi-national chemical companies
• These companies stand to gain control, power, and wealth
• Their intentions are the furtherance of their material wealth and power - the further growth and development of their business and economic gain around the world. In many cases I would also say that there is the intention to "control" the world food supply for their own benefit and gain. As far as "enlightenment" goes, I think it can be said that without doubt the people making decisions (those that hold the power) within these companies is close to nil. We are dealing with people and companies that have very little (if any) appreciation for anything beyond the material and most superficial levels of reality and life on Earth.
• I would say that their ethics are pretty much driven by materialism - that profits and money come first and that the well-being of Humanity is secondary to this.
• I suspect these companies don't even know what the word Gaia means and that the concept of the Earth as one large living organism is something they have no appreciation or understanding of.

Now, these answers are by no means complete yet I know that for all intents and purposes they pretty much sum up the situation at hand. Based on these answers I think we can safely say that GE technology is going to have many inherent dangers when in the hands of these corporations. Hence, GE technology is very clearly something to be wary of so long as it is companies like these that are developing and promoting it.

I will add, however, that GE has the potential to be of great benefit to humanity just as many other technologies have—when used correctly—greatly benefited us. I suspect those who say that all technology is outright "bad" may be wise to sit down and give deeper consideration to the nature of life on earth and the role that Humanity has within that, and to what degree they are separating humanity from the greater scheme of things.

The consciousness from which GE has arisen

To me this point is of utmost significance and it is one that applies to all of humanity's activities. It is not so much WHAT we do that is important, but rather WHY or what motivates us to do things - both personally and at a global level.

My friend made the point that "well, if you don't agree with GE then why are you driving a car... is that also not a bad thing?"

This is right, within a certain context. I am aware that humanity has had the necessary knowledge to get rid of all combustion engines and all of our current energy producing systems and technologies. "Free-energy" as it is called has been an option for about the last 100 years or so. Yet we see no real tangible sign of this technology coming into our hands and use any time soon - for reasons that I have explained elsewhere. So, in the mean time whilst I live in this world I continue to use a car.

Although to me this is not the point. The point is that much of what we are focused on and what we use to exist in this world as a Race is inherently out of balance with the Earth and is destructive in it's outcome. Anyone who does not see the truth in that is fooling themselves and would be wise to ask themselves why they have their eyes close - what is it they don't wish to see?

There are those that do SEE what I am talking about here and then they go out into the world and start trying to change things and fix things. This is all very well. Yet I will say that in my experience this is simply not the answer. Not to say that people should not stand up against those things they disagree with in the world, but rather to say that the outcome of that activity will not be what they think they are after.

The key to changing the world is to realise that this world and it's present state of affairs is simply a mirror of where the mass consciousness of humanity is at within itself. Hence, on that basis, the key to eliciting change "out-there" is to invoke change within. We are each solely responsible for that which is within us and hence it is up to each of us to transform our inner Being into something more in alignment with Love. This, and only this, is what will bring about transformation within the human world.

Blessings,

Jonathan