Search the Community

Interestingly the concept of 3D printers has been thrown around a lot, and it was actually brought to my attention that they are mainly talking about printing food with genetically modified insects, meal worms, etc, algae. That this trend towards a corporitist model of central agricultural planning would lead down the road 30 years plus to an insurance prescribed 'food cube'. A bit of a hyperbole, though do not assume its all unlikely in any degree. On the other hand, is the continued movement towards heirloom farmer markets, permaculture, and land conservation in the attempts of getting enough species variety, and consequentially genetic resilience, along with much more anti-oxidant and environmentally protective secondary metabolite within plants into the human body, which would start to bring man back to this aboriginal pre-agricultural genetic strength. Which I mean, hey, if you want to put heirloom food into a 3D printer.. you get the idea. But I digress. Point being, if you know anything about transhumanism. People are talking about growing organs, downloading their minds into machines, genetically programming out diseases, genetically designing babies, and various other continuous meddling. That is to say, applying sophisticated band-aids to an imperfect under-developed body. While no doubt, they may design a type of ubermensche, I can foresee the majority of those individuals brought farther down the course of a genetically bastardized food system, with government, and public schooling to lead to anything less than a weaker version of people. I don't know if anyone on this board would know much about aboriginal studies and traditional cultures. The theory is, that because we have limited the human diet so greatly in the pursuit of an alcohol based society (which Joe Rogan has talked about) and grain consumption, we have increasingly lost the natural genetic protection conferred by eating natural habitat diversity. This shows in CAFO's where the sterility has led to anti-biotic resistant super bugs, and countless other examples. The only reason monoculture farming works, are because of industrial inputs. If you stand back and let nature take over, it kills human artifacts until the wildness returns. This idea of challenging agriculture to ask the question, how do we know what we think we know-..is it perhaps a result of an alcohol based civilization. What if we cause a potato blight on ourselves? This all raises the question of how we see ourselves, as a dominant species, or the anthropomorphic perspective vs. an integral species. Can we survive under a paradigm that assumes we were managing for our own habitat objectively, when in reality we were destroying out own habitat by undermining our own genetics? What if Hayek's obersvations were really about symbiosis? If he had understood this genetic phenomena, how would it have been reflected in his market observations?