Right now the movement to wean humans off meat is ramping up. If you’re not a vegan, or vegetarian, or whatever kind of person doesn’t eat animals of any kind, including worms, insects, and platypuses, you are seen as one who doesn’t care about the planet. “Eat plants” goes the mantra. There are those out to control what you eat, to take away your freedom to get that medium-rare filet mignon.
Would you say that one of the dilemmas humans face—have always faced—is a choice between control and freedom? I’m thinking not only family life with rebellious teens struggling against parental control, but also political, societal, and religious life. Have you noticed that those who seek freedom, then seek control once they have it? The Soviet Union rose from rebellion, but then became the controlling entity. Its fall demonstrates that the forces of freedom struggle against and sometimes win a battle over control. Many revolutionaries with the goal of freedom then become instruments of control, as in Cuba, for example, where Castro overthrew Batista, essentially replacing one tyrant with another. I know that’s a simplification, but it serves to explain the dilemma. Here’s another. Pope Francis banned (another simplification on my part) the Latin Mass. Seeking a control he deemed necessary for Church unity, he essentially quashed freedom and set some to thinking about disunity, the very opposite of his intention. And in the United States, proponents of Critical Race Theory have instituted educational programs that propose a singularity of perspective that is, in itself, the very antithesis of what CRT says it intends “to cure”: a one-sided racism. Forcing controls on others always breeds rebellion, either in thought or in deed. Deep down most people are rebellious teens as soon as someone imposes controls.
It seems difficult for any human to balance necessary control with the freedom necessary for individuals to flourish. Outside privileged groups that seek control for various reasons, such as greed and hubris (elitism), lie the individuals or groups under control, often ready to rebel. But almost as soon as any group forms, it sees itself in the context of other groups that are in some way inferior. The group in control gets to make the rules, and those rules often entail actions that do not favor freedom for the controlled.
Now all this seems like generalized rambling without a point—even to me as I reread it. But give me a moment. The reason for my focus on a dilemma that probably did not keep you up in restless worry last night is an article by Yu, Q., Liu, S., Yu, L. et al. entitled “RNA demethylation increases the yield and biomass of rice and potato plants in field trials.”*
As we proliferate toward eight billion of us, we find that dilemma ever more pressing on each of us. Do we accept controls that limit freedom—our personal freedom—or do we fight for unlimited freedom? Apparently, no one put restrictive controls on Qiong Yu that prohibited the research on rice and potatoes. But what could rice and potato plants have to do with that dilemma I mentioned above?
If you read the article, you’ll see some exciting news. The researchers were able to use RNA to control what I call a “limiting gene” that prevents plants from becoming analogs of Jack’s sky-reaching beanstalk. Without an oversight by any watch group, say an ethics committee, Qiong Yu and friends made a simultaneously exciting and frightening discovery. They used transgenic expression of a human RNA demethylase FTO to change plant growth and production, getting about a 50% increase in biomass and potentially making plants more “climate change resistant.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? Go ahead, Global Warming, give it your best shot, drought us into submission if you can, but know this: Because of Qiong Yu we have plants with bigger and deeper root systems; we’ll survive because a few researchers performed uninhibited transgenic experiments; we’re freeeeeeeee because Qiong Yu’s group was free to conduct such experiments.
But what if that freedom finds it way into someone in our eight-billion “member’s only club” who decides to run the experiment in reverse, to perform a transgenic experiment that results in humans altered by plant RNA? Don’t laugh. That’s a scary thought and one that should keep you up at night. Just as there are people working in labs like the Wuhan lab from which there seems to be increasing evidence of a “leak” that caused a pandemic, so there are people who are experimenting freely everywhere: No controls because there is no one to exert control or controls because an evil-minded tyrannical government exerts its control. Eight billion people are hard to keep track of, even in an age of supercomputer tracing by big government agencies and Big Tech employees with an agenda. In a lab out there somewhere…
I’m reminded of the 1977 sitcom Quark, a short-lived TV series of parodies created by Buck Henry and starring Richard Benjamin. ** The crew of the space-roaming garbage scow in the year 2226 included two beautiful women, Betty I and her clone Betty II, Gene/Jean, a “transmute” with a male machismo and a gentle femininity, and—here’s the connection--Ficus Pandorata, a Vegeton, a sentient plant. By the way, Richard Benjamin’s character Quark has to answer to a petty, tyrannical bureaucrat named Otto Bob Palindrome, obviously his last name indicative of his first and middle names.
Back to Ficus. The sitcom’s inclusion of a human-like plant Ficus seems farsighted in view of the work in transgenic research by Qiong Yu et al. You might be thinking, “No, that’ll never happen. No one’s going to use plant RNA to alter human DNA.”
Really? Have you been paying attention during the pandemic? If the coronavirus was altered in a lab either under government control or under no control, were you aware that people were conducting such gain-of-function research? And if the virus was, in fact, a gain-of-function product of human design or accident, who—or WHO—had control over the design and purpose of the research? Was it just a matter of a free individual or individuals who decided one day, “Hey, let’s take the common cold and make it into a deadly pandemic.” Remember, also, that at least two of the vaccines rely on RNA manipulation.
Let’s go humorous here. It’s your nightmare world of the future when others are in control of much of what you now freely hold dear. You’re in a restaurant. The waiter approaches and says, “Hi, I’m Rice. I’ll be your server tonight. What’s your pleasure?”
You say, “I’ll have the house salad.”
A vegeton, the waiter immediately calls the anti-vegan police squad to throw you in jail. In that distant future, only purely carnivorous patrons are welcome.
Note:
* Nat Biotechnol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00982-9 Accessed July 23, 2021.
** Corny show, but filled with parodies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ggR1eDgbc Accessed July 23, 2021. Ficus is an analog of Star Trek’s Spock.
Would you say that one of the dilemmas humans face—have always faced—is a choice between control and freedom? I’m thinking not only family life with rebellious teens struggling against parental control, but also political, societal, and religious life. Have you noticed that those who seek freedom, then seek control once they have it? The Soviet Union rose from rebellion, but then became the controlling entity. Its fall demonstrates that the forces of freedom struggle against and sometimes win a battle over control. Many revolutionaries with the goal of freedom then become instruments of control, as in Cuba, for example, where Castro overthrew Batista, essentially replacing one tyrant with another. I know that’s a simplification, but it serves to explain the dilemma. Here’s another. Pope Francis banned (another simplification on my part) the Latin Mass. Seeking a control he deemed necessary for Church unity, he essentially quashed freedom and set some to thinking about disunity, the very opposite of his intention. And in the United States, proponents of Critical Race Theory have instituted educational programs that propose a singularity of perspective that is, in itself, the very antithesis of what CRT says it intends “to cure”: a one-sided racism. Forcing controls on others always breeds rebellion, either in thought or in deed. Deep down most people are rebellious teens as soon as someone imposes controls.
It seems difficult for any human to balance necessary control with the freedom necessary for individuals to flourish. Outside privileged groups that seek control for various reasons, such as greed and hubris (elitism), lie the individuals or groups under control, often ready to rebel. But almost as soon as any group forms, it sees itself in the context of other groups that are in some way inferior. The group in control gets to make the rules, and those rules often entail actions that do not favor freedom for the controlled.
Now all this seems like generalized rambling without a point—even to me as I reread it. But give me a moment. The reason for my focus on a dilemma that probably did not keep you up in restless worry last night is an article by Yu, Q., Liu, S., Yu, L. et al. entitled “RNA demethylation increases the yield and biomass of rice and potato plants in field trials.”*
As we proliferate toward eight billion of us, we find that dilemma ever more pressing on each of us. Do we accept controls that limit freedom—our personal freedom—or do we fight for unlimited freedom? Apparently, no one put restrictive controls on Qiong Yu that prohibited the research on rice and potatoes. But what could rice and potato plants have to do with that dilemma I mentioned above?
If you read the article, you’ll see some exciting news. The researchers were able to use RNA to control what I call a “limiting gene” that prevents plants from becoming analogs of Jack’s sky-reaching beanstalk. Without an oversight by any watch group, say an ethics committee, Qiong Yu and friends made a simultaneously exciting and frightening discovery. They used transgenic expression of a human RNA demethylase FTO to change plant growth and production, getting about a 50% increase in biomass and potentially making plants more “climate change resistant.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? Go ahead, Global Warming, give it your best shot, drought us into submission if you can, but know this: Because of Qiong Yu we have plants with bigger and deeper root systems; we’ll survive because a few researchers performed uninhibited transgenic experiments; we’re freeeeeeeee because Qiong Yu’s group was free to conduct such experiments.
But what if that freedom finds it way into someone in our eight-billion “member’s only club” who decides to run the experiment in reverse, to perform a transgenic experiment that results in humans altered by plant RNA? Don’t laugh. That’s a scary thought and one that should keep you up at night. Just as there are people working in labs like the Wuhan lab from which there seems to be increasing evidence of a “leak” that caused a pandemic, so there are people who are experimenting freely everywhere: No controls because there is no one to exert control or controls because an evil-minded tyrannical government exerts its control. Eight billion people are hard to keep track of, even in an age of supercomputer tracing by big government agencies and Big Tech employees with an agenda. In a lab out there somewhere…
I’m reminded of the 1977 sitcom Quark, a short-lived TV series of parodies created by Buck Henry and starring Richard Benjamin. ** The crew of the space-roaming garbage scow in the year 2226 included two beautiful women, Betty I and her clone Betty II, Gene/Jean, a “transmute” with a male machismo and a gentle femininity, and—here’s the connection--Ficus Pandorata, a Vegeton, a sentient plant. By the way, Richard Benjamin’s character Quark has to answer to a petty, tyrannical bureaucrat named Otto Bob Palindrome, obviously his last name indicative of his first and middle names.
Back to Ficus. The sitcom’s inclusion of a human-like plant Ficus seems farsighted in view of the work in transgenic research by Qiong Yu et al. You might be thinking, “No, that’ll never happen. No one’s going to use plant RNA to alter human DNA.”
Really? Have you been paying attention during the pandemic? If the coronavirus was altered in a lab either under government control or under no control, were you aware that people were conducting such gain-of-function research? And if the virus was, in fact, a gain-of-function product of human design or accident, who—or WHO—had control over the design and purpose of the research? Was it just a matter of a free individual or individuals who decided one day, “Hey, let’s take the common cold and make it into a deadly pandemic.” Remember, also, that at least two of the vaccines rely on RNA manipulation.
Let’s go humorous here. It’s your nightmare world of the future when others are in control of much of what you now freely hold dear. You’re in a restaurant. The waiter approaches and says, “Hi, I’m Rice. I’ll be your server tonight. What’s your pleasure?”
You say, “I’ll have the house salad.”
A vegeton, the waiter immediately calls the anti-vegan police squad to throw you in jail. In that distant future, only purely carnivorous patrons are welcome.
Note:
* Nat Biotechnol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00982-9 Accessed July 23, 2021.
** Corny show, but filled with parodies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ggR1eDgbc Accessed July 23, 2021. Ficus is an analog of Star Trek’s Spock.
RSS Feed