Without examining either the societal or biological realities of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), the technology appears intellectually arrogant from the position of NOR (Non-Objective Reality). A basic honest understanding of evolutionary theory makes the case.
Mainstream modern culture is steeped in science – obsessed with being objective and furthering scientific thinking within all walks of life. Faith and belief are rebuked as descriptors of the scientific perspective – scientific truth supposedly belonging to some higher order beyond question. Knowledge thus derived is increasingly seen as utterly and incontrovertibly true, with an intransigence curiously akin to religious zealotry.
Of course, science aficionados would invoke the scientific method, clinical experimentation, the peer-review process and such, to challenge any idea science was effectively a religion – likely arguing the absence of these things in religious outlooks gives science a uniquely solid grounding.
The view of Non-Objective Reality (NOR) is that the mind’s abstract modeling of reality amounts to an artificially divisive segmentation of perceptual data such that the model thereby conceived is a vastly simplified version populated by relatively discrete components generically referred to as things – the supposed component parts of reality. NOR challenges the wisdom of this approach.
Modern life is demanding. Civilization’s complexity involves reckoning with multiple social structures, managing a host of societal obligations, and coping with relentless change. Social inclusion requires far more than simply securing life’s essentials in the manners our ancestors did.
Little of this would exist had technology not enabled massive changes that progressively transformed human life beyond anything previously imagined. However, evolutionary theory dictates human genetic evolution has not kept pace with such change, and we have therefore created a world alien to our genetic adaptations. At what cost?
Non-Objective Reality (NOR), as its name suggests, is a critique of the objective view of the world. However, it is not one of the increasing challenges to objectivity that reflexively dismisses whatever risks offending people’s feelings. There is no attempt in NOR to for example, silence science, or to argue feelings inherently carry more weight – albeit, science is heavily criticized and feelings are given more credence than conventional objectivity generally allows.
Many human procedures are based on reliably identifying points in space and time. Points are specified directly, as in ten miles north of here, or at 15:00 hours, or indirectly, as in where the electron is found, or as soon as the cage is opened. Either way, the mind assumes these points to provide useful markers and measures of reality. But does this idea stack up as anything more than a cognitive convenience? What can be learned about the mind’s identification of such points, plus its use of them to map out reality?
Physics relies heavily on measuring some aspect or behavior of whatever is studied. But the accuracy and authenticity of the process are more dubious than commonly recognized – with consequences for the trustworthiness of both physics and everyday ideas.