Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops

Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops

www.newscien tist.com

Scientists have both the right and a moral duty to be "stewards of God" by genetically modifying crops to help the world's poor, scientific advisers to the Vatican said this week.

In a statement condemning opposition to GM crops in rich countries as unjustified, a group of scientists including leading members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is demanding a relaxation of "excessive, unscientific regulations" for approving GM crops, saying that these prevent development of crops ....

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The world according to the Vatican ... Grow more GM crops!

Dejavu?

I find it disconcerting that we see a repeat release from the PAS on an issue upon which they weighed in over a year ago.

More importantly, this particular thrust of the pen seems to include a rather damning phrase:

"Scientists have both the right and a moral duty to be "stewards of God" by genetically modifying crops..."

So, by any measure of logic, NOT pursuing GMO development is morally "wrong" and "unjust." This to me seems frightening. It appears that the Vatican's scientific process has been fully pursuaded by their investment partners to help them further their cause to ease restrictions on the propagation of their 'creations.'

Sadly, there is even a heading in the article which states "Immaterial risks" - which is a meme the establishment uses whenever "commercialization" is threatened by less 'enterprising' and 'market driven' mentalities.

The article appears rife with exactly the kind of public relations memo gobbledegook meant to cast any who disagree into the realm of 'those who should be ignored' like conspiracy theorists, chemtrail believers, and other tin-foil hat wearers."

Except now they have added the moral authority of the Catholic Church atop the pressure mound to make sure the weak-willed, misinformed, and mainstream media teat-sucking masses are less inclined to question the wisdom that brings us what they call moral and just.

Since this is a repeat of something wat they have been asserting for over a year, I find myself wondering what changed? Perhaps the CODEX adoption? Maybe this is the groundwork for ensureing that people can be morally- if not legally - compelled to plant GMO crops?


www.newscien tist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is one of the most disgusting things to come out of the Vatican in a long time.

It tells me there are big financial interests between the Vatican and Monsanto. It also exposes for the first time in such a public way that the Vatican is a big player in the vipers nest. Just what so many people have been saying.

I'm not sure what is going on - but they are exposing their insanity more and more. Perhaps they are really, finally completely losing it? Or do they feel invincible.

I hope that this disgraceful nonsense brings a few hundred thousand more catholics to their senses.

SHAME ON YOU, VATICAN.

I would like to know if TPTB, like all those gentlemen at the vatican are eating the GM food themselves. If we could prove that they weren't, that would really help our case.

like making Mr. Burns eat the 3 eyed fish his nuclear reactor produced. (early episode of the simpsons)

Driven by my compulsion to deconstruct lists, I offer the following rebuttal of the final points shown in the article:

No uncertain terms
Will the Vatican back GM crops? Here are some controversial arguments from the statement

On playing God

"New human forms of intervention in the natural world should not be seen as contrary to the natural law that God has given to the Creation."

On regulation

"Overly stringent regulation developed by wealthy countries and focused almost exclusively on the hypothetical risks of genetically engineered crops discriminates against developing and poor countries. This has placed [them] at an unacceptable disadvantage."

On unpredictable consequences

"The possible evolutionary risks of genetic engineering events cannot be greater than the risks of the natural process of biological evolution or of the application of chemical mutagenesis."

On opponents of GM

"We urge those who oppose or are sceptically about the use of genetically engineered crop varieties and the application of modern genetics generally to evaluate carefully the science, and the demonstrable harm caused by withholding this proven technology from those who need it most."

On the moral case for GM crops

"There is a moral imperative to make the benefits of genetically engineered technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations who want them, and on terms that will enable them to raise their standards of living, improve their health and protect their environments."

On playing God

....human forms of intervention in the natural world should not be seen as contrary to the natural law ...

Not meaning to be 'lawyeristic' but in this case it would mean that nothing a human can do is contrary to natural law. We must accept that the definition is being manipulated to benefit commercialization and trade, not morality. "Feeding the poor" is both a noble and necessary endeavor by any sense of humanity... but they would like us to pretend, for their benefit, that we can;t feed the poor because we don't have GMO crops. This is an unfounded axiom. We most certainly COULD feed the poor NOW without GMO crops if we stopped the wars, wealth hoarding, and exploitation of the people in question.

On regulation

Overly stringent regulation developed by wealthy countries and focused almost exclusively on the hypothetical risks of genetically engineered crops discriminates against developing and poor countries. This has placed [them] at an unacceptable disadvantage.

Whereas the impetus to proceed with poorly understood manipulations of chaotic and dynamic ecological systems is based upon the hypothetical benefit of GMO profiteering. This places those subject to a diet of untried frankenfoods at risk, which to the establishment is offset by PROFIT and CONTROL.

On unpredictable consequences

The possible evolutionary risks of genetic engineering events cannot be greater than the risks of the natural process of biological evolution or of the application of chemical mutagenesis.

Excuse me?

Risks of genetic engineering = risks of the natural process of biological evolution
OR
risks of genetic engineering = risk of the application of chemical mutagenesis?

I don't know who was drinking how much wine when they crafted that statement. Rather than use the resources we have, manage (or steward) them for the purpose of overcoming hunger, THEIR solution is OK because its "different" and no more risky? And when did "chemical mutagenesis" as an alternative come into this picture (is this sort of like adding melanin to food so it 'registers' as having more protein)? On a scale of 1 to 10 this rates a 9.5 on the BS-O-Meter.

On opponents of GM

We urge those who oppose or are sceptical about the use of genetically engineered crop varieties and the application of modern genetics generally to evaluate carefully the science, and the demonstrable harm caused by withholding this proven technology from those who need it most.

Oddly, this completely overlooks the demonstrable harm the Vatican and other FOR PROFIT organizations have caused by determining that unlimited profit growth is more important than feeding the poor. Furthermore, as many of us know, the more in depth and specialized a science becomes the more its maxims appear and are held as dogma. So no, I am not inclined to have undo faith in the narrowly focused science - which they produce and own - to justify the risk of "trusting them."

On the moral case for GM crops

There is a moral imperative to make the benefits of genetically engineered technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations who want them, and on terms that will enable them to raise their standards of living, improve their health and protect their environments.

Actually, and somewhat ironically (that it has to be stated) the moral imperative is that we need to eliminate endemic hunger as a state of human affairs. The rest is just political and marketeering nonsense; intended to bolster the case that someone who owns a process should be rewarded handsomely by forcing people to use it on their terms.

Commericialization is NOT something the Vatican should be involved with. The market decides - not the business cartels and their financiers.

reply to post by Maxmars


It is really amazing when you consider at one point in time the Vatican stood in the way of any science that interfered with "God's Will" and now they are stating science is a display of "God's Will".

It would seem to me that what Rome previously decreed served Rome at that point in time, and what it is now decreeing to the stark polar opposite serves it at this point in time.

I will be cross posting the article to All Roads Lead to Rome, stop by and add a comment if you please Maxmars!

Great find.

S&F
Codex Alimentarius en route.
WMDs for dinner - I'm lovin' it.

Food for thought:

reply to post by Maxmars


The Vatican and Monsanto eh? Is our fate sealed yet? The nature of the beast sure is becoming clearer. Monsanto only wishes to patent every atom of the physical world and exterminate all alternatives currently available. Feeding an entire planet is lucrative of course, who can blame them for trying. Aaahh, there´s the corporate nightmare realised. An amoeba that cannot reflect, learn or reason. And it will never stop feeding.

And the Vatican expects to keep us in spiritual bondage so we cannot rebel. And of course rob us of any coin we have left after buying our GMO food. You know as well as I that we will beg for fluoride and aspartame once Monsanto take their gloves off. Oh, and if you are against genetically modified food, you want people to starve to death! No need for panic though, the revolution is at hand!

Vatican scientists... now there´s an oxymoron. Someone please hold my hair, I´m about to be sick..

reply to post by wcitizen


It could be financial interests or the hope that manipulated farming will be able to produce a food supply for the ever increasing human population on earth, upsetting natural law's supply and demand. In other words, the Vatican wants to avoid people in overpopulated places from starving to death and have been convienced this farming method will do that.

reply to post by sara123123


I would have to ask of them, how they came to see GMO as the solution? We already have done the math over and over, and there is no reason OTHER THAN COMMERCE why people (in large demographic groups) are suffering from endemic hunger and starvation.

Rather than admit that COMMERCE has driven the moral component of business into the gutter, they are yeilding to it. I find that notion somewhat repulsive.

It is very much akin to creating huge enterprises to gather 'billions in charity' and somehow STILL not making any significant headway aginst the evil....

It is my opinion, and I offer it with some trepidation, that they WANTED to be convinced..... and that probability leads me to ask WHY? Personal gain perhaps? Or could it be an even less human motivation? These and other such questions are of course rhetorical. I don't expect we will ever be told.

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by wcitizen

 

It could be financial interests or the hope that manipulated farming will be able to produce a food supply for the ever increasing human population on earth, upsetting natural law's supply and demand. In other words, the Vatican wants to avoid people in overpopulated places from starving to death and have been convienced this farming method will do that.

That would be an argument worth giving some consideration to if GM crops were good for people, but they aren't, and they aren't necessary either. Have you read up about Monsanto and the GM crop scam and how they are reducing farmers to abject poverty?

Originally posted by Exodaria
reply to post by Maxmars

 

The Vatican and Monsanto eh? Is our fate sealed yet? The nature of the beast sure is becoming clearer. Monsanto only wishes to patent every atom of the physical world and exterminate all alternatives currently available. Feeding an entire planet is lucrative of course, who can blame them for trying. Aaahh, there´s the corporate nightmare realised. An amoeba that cannot reflect, learn or reason. And it will never stop feeding.

And the Vatican expects to keep us in spiritual bondage so we cannot rebel. And of course rob us of any coin we have left after buying our GMO food. You know as well as I that we will beg for fluoride and aspartame once Monsanto take their gloves off. Oh, and if you are against genetically modified food, you want people to starve to death! No need for panic though, the revolution is at hand!

Vatican scientists... now there´s an oxymoron. Someone please hold my hair, I´m about to be sick..

Yes, that's the only positive here - at least the identity of the beast is becoming clearer...and we are starting get hard evidence of who is involved.

People, people, this all about Money talks and you know what walks, the money donations toward the Vatican to make them change their minds and support GM crops most be very, very good.

Nothing more than buying out opinions to suppress opposition.

That is why I do not trust anybody because even I could change my mind for the right amount of money. if i was holding some power like the Vatican over the masses.

I despise monsanto and anything in its accomplishments.
I find it very interesting that the seed bank in Norway houses all the natural seeds of the world.
I'd bet you wont find any GMO stock in there,. Hmm another corrupt business like the Vatican joins the ranks
in the castration of earths 90%
Just another reason to dislike religion.org

Weird stance to take on behalf of the Vatican...its ok to mess with God's creations and alter them?

I guess...I mean, it says "I give all the seed bearing plants and herbs to you" (Gen 1.12), so by their rules (I guess) its ok to mess with such things.

But say something horrible happened ...I dunno, use your imagination...just for argument's sake.

Would the Vatican admit they messed up and shouldn't have tinkered with something way beyond our "realm of understanding"?

I guess the Vatican's scientists see themselves as "God's scientists"...and well, that gives them the right and "moral obligation" to SCREW with mother nature and the fragile link between us and God's creations.

I just think the Vatican has no right to give this advice, nor tell us its God's will.

S&F sir, great post.

MM

The nazi pope is gods main man on earth, so if he says that we can improve on gods work. Who are we to argue against it?

reply to post by Mr Mask

Of course,. what is the difference what they change,.
these hypocritical nuts have been rewriting the "laws" of the bible for centuries

"Scientists have both the right and a moral duty to be "stewards of God" by genetically modifying crops to help the world's poor, scientific advisers to the Vatican said this week. "

That's not surprising to hear. Organized religion is the oldest and largest corporation, after all.

i wounder why the vatcan with one of the biggest bank ballences in the world would rather risk angering their god by messing with nature and gods work
when with the interest on their holding they could pay for food for half the poor
or supply non gm seads so the poor could feed themselfs

this screams of the vatican being part of a depopulation agenda

xploder

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by sara123123

 

I would have to ask of them, how they came to see GMO as the solution? We already have done the math over and over, and there is no reason OTHER THAN COMMERCE why people (in large demographic groups) are suffering from endemic hunger and starvation.

Rather than admit that COMMERCE has driven the moral component of business into the gutter, they are yeilding to it. I find that notion somewhat repulsive.

It is very much akin to creating huge enterprises to gather 'billions in charity' and somehow STILL not making any significant headway aginst the evil....
It is my opinion, and I offer it with some trepidation, that they WANTED to be convinced..... and that probability leads me to ask WHY? Personal gain perhaps? Or could it be an even less human motivation? These and other such questions are of course rhetorical. I don't expect we will ever be told.

Are you proposing some global communal system for food production and distribution? Come on. I hope you are not proposing that sure way to starve the world to death.