Cav's Place

As you should probably already know, tomorrow’s the international March Against Monsanto day. If you somehow didn’t already know it, you learned it now and can still look for an event to attend in your area, seeing as, at the moment I’m writing this sentence, the events page lists 424 events taking place in 58 countries and all of them definitely need the power of numbers if we want this to have an actual impact.

Besides making a last minute call for participation, however, what I mean to do with this post is point out that Monsanto is merely the most notable “face” of a greater problem, which has to do with food security, with the way modern humans obtain their food and with what impact this has on the environment. Even if we’ll someday be successful, merely taking action against a corporation, even one as large and as evil as Monsanto, won’t do much good if the structure and mindset that gave birth to it and continues to allow it to thrive will remain, and in order to change that we need to offer, promote and actively implement solutions for the core problems, not merely react against their manifestations, be they real or perceived.
When we do go on the offensive, however, it is important to focus on the paths of attack that are the least defensible. After all, if all you have is an old pistol and you’re being rushed by somebody in bullet-proof armor, you can desperately fire all your bullets at their chest or head hoping that it’ll be enough, you can start frantically searching for a rocket launcher, or you can notice that the armor only covers them from the waist up, smash their knees with a well-aimed shot and then finish them off once they’re down. The same principle applies here as well, so it may at times be wiser to partially or even completely ignore certain obvious facets of the problem, even if we’re talking about extremely important ones, in order to direct all energy towards those that the other side is least likely to be able to spin in their favor.
At the same time, while the scope of the message needs to expand to include the greater issue and a number of proposed solutions, it absolutely must not be stretched past that point. Mixing messages and lumping together different issues only causes confusion for any potential observers and greatly increases the risk of disagreements among the participants, because while everyone is expected to attend because they agree with the main topic, each person may have a different opinion when it comes to any others, even those that some may feel are closely related, and that’s entirely their right and perfectly fine. Thankfully, people only need to agree on one goal in order to be able to work together towards it, even if they disagree on all others, but they must be allowed to do so by ensuring that none of those other issues are brought up. There are few enough willing to act to risk any disagreements or to allow any efforts to be wasted due to lack of sufficient focus.

But the section above largely deals with general concepts when it comes to activism, so I want to point out that the least defensible path of attack when it comes to this particular issue is the economic and social one, followed by the environmental one. Yes, there is a lot to be said about the potential impact eating genetically modified organisms may have on health, the potentially lower nutritional value or the potentially lower productivity, both from the beginning and, more frequently, after a few years of unsustainably high yields deplete the soil, but GMO advocates are sufficiently prepared to answer such challenges in ways that will at the very least sow doubt in the minds of the uninformed and there are plenty of others who, for various reasons, will back their claims, so taking the fight there is exactly what they want and therefore exactly what we must avoid.
If we want to get through their rhetoric without playing on their terms, the first thing we must point out is that allowing corporations to get patents for edible plants, and even for livestock, and passing laws to protect their “rights” to take action against those who don’t respect their terms, means that we’re handing over the control of food. We all need to eat, but if we go down this path we’ll eventually only be able to eat what they want us to and only as long as we pay them whatever they want and give them whatever other rights and powers they wish for, and it means that this won’t happen at an individual level, but at the level of entire countries and continents, so once that ball gets rolling, it’ll be extremely difficult to stop.
The second aspect I mentioned, the environmental one, has to do with the fact that these new species are, by their own definition, more likely to thrive under the current conditions than existing, natural ones. As such, if they will spread into the environment, they will push out many other species and that will almost certainly have disastrous consequences, far worse than even those caused by current monocultures. Admittedly, pointing this out may offer them a way to justify certain decisions, such as the plants that don’t produce any seeds that may be replanted, but the matter is nevertheless one to tackle, both because that isn’t a guaranteed fix and because obviously worsening one problem to lower the risk of another that shouldn’t exist in the first place is hardly right.

Last but definitely not least, one topic that the vast majority involved in this particular battle should definitely stay well clear of is population. Even when GMO advocates will say, as they often tend to do, that traditional methods, not to mention organic ones, can’t even properly feed the existing population, much less a growing one, particularly without destroying the environment even more, they probably shouldn’t respond to the provocation, because any mention of the issue tends to make them react emotionally, get angry, start spewing forth all that crap about the “depopulation agenda” and generally make themselves unable to get back to thinking coherently when the topic will change and greatly reduce their own credibility in the eyes of those still capable of using their brains even when gonads come into play.
The proper response when the matter is brought up, and the one I obviously give when it comes to it, is to completely agree with the statement but add that this only means that we need to get the population back within sustainable limits, so anything that allows it to keep growing actually increases the harm. I’ll also say that we need to find ways to reduce population without killing anyone or allowing people to die unnecessarily, therefore throwing the argument right back at them while also touching on the economic and social aspect and giving all of those who believe those conspiracy theories a bone to chew on as well, but seeing as the vast majority won’t do or even think that, touching on the issue of population is pretty much the last thing we want to do when it comes to GMOs.