It doesn't mean anything in any real, demonstrable sense. It was one of those movement things where someone who is supposedly a top scientist in a field promises us the latest info behind closed doors (wink, wink) when he only tells the public the stuff they would understand. So I was hoping for something profound but got a load of cock and bull about how DNA was created by consciousness (yawn) which means that interfering with DNA affected the expression of enlightenment if you eat it. No, it doesn't make sense.
Luckily for Dr Fagan there are enough other reasons to be wary and his public lecture was very interesting indeed. Stick to the facts, that's what I say. Leave all this spiritual mumbo jumbo to the back room. Like he did. He's on tour again at the moment but I wouldn't be interested in hearing it because I know it's a front for his weirdo TM beliefs about the veda. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : Now what exactly does that mean, "interfering with consciousness and the veda"??? Everything, according to the spiritual people IS consciousness, including the creation of GMO crops and their very existence IS consciousness - it may not be the best manifestation of consciousness but they are part of it nonetheless. And how can one interfere with the veda??? -------------------------------------------- On Sun, 3/9/14, salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: GMOs threaten to end all life on Earth To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 9, 2014, 7:08 AM Taleb expresses concern not for the potential health effects of GMOs but for the risk they carry of ending all life on Earth. Yes, one does seem to outweigh the other a bit..... For example, if 100 new GM seed types are produced, then that 0.1 percent chance suddenly becomes a 10 percent chance of global life-ending catastrophe. Assuming the first calculation is correct...... The draft form of the paper, "The Precautionary Principle," is available to download as a PDF document here. Where? I'd like to have a read if you've got a link. My main objection is actually the fact that the world food supply will become the regulated property of a few biotech companies. Then you have the inevitable spread of modified genes into the wild and all the unexpected consequences that might have. Most of it seems pretty harmless though, but the worst way of fighting it was the TMO's reason. I went to a lecture by John Fagan, the TM scientist who campaigns against it, in public he makes some interesting points but in private it's the same old "interfering with consciousness and the veda" BS that he couldn't ever admit to in public without destroying all scientific credibility. How to tell when you're in a cult part 357: You have to keep your beliefs secret. See also Scientology and Xenu. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : GMOs threaten to end all life on Earth, risk engineering professor and investment expert warns http://www.fool.com)Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) threaten to cause "an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet," according to Nassim Taleb, an author and distinguished professor of risk engineering at New York University who made a fortune after disasters like September 11 and the Great Recession. Taleb recently made his feelings on GMOs known in a paper that is available to the public, though still in draft form. Taleb expresses concern not for the potential health effects of GMOs but for the risk they carry of ending all life on Earth. A single GM seed type has a miniscule chance -- e.g., 0.1 percent -- of causing the breakdown of the ecosystem that all life depends on, also called ecocide. With this one type of seed, it is highly unlikely that total ecocide would ever occur; however, with increasing amounts of GM seed varieties comes cumulative risk. For example, if 100 new GM seed types are produced, then that 0.1 percent chance suddenly becomes a 10 percent chance of global life-ending catastrophe. The associated risks vary for different seeds, and a huge number of factors are involved, but what Taleb's paper stresses is that these small odds add up over time so that "something bound to hit the [ecocide] barrier is about guaranteed to hit it." Click here to read a report by The Motley Fool's Brian Stoffel explaining Taleb's paper in greater detail. The draft form of the paper, "The Precautionary Principle," is available to download as a PDF document here.
