Have We Got Brews for You!

Apparently you can now 'print' a plant based meat substitute in 3D, and the texture and taste are excellent, according to the new Jeremy Clarkson of the culinary world, George 'GM' Monbiot. He has been singing from the rooftops about other wonderful techno-utopian offerings, such as 'precision fermentation' and even genetically engineered 'solutions' to all the world's problems. On his RePlanet, ReBoot, ReFood, ReGurgitate manifesto he actually claims that these technologies can provide "abundant food to the world's poorest".

When was the last time a new technology was used to benefit the world's poorest? Covid vaccines may have been produced remarkably quickly, but billions were made out of them. The same billions could have been used to feed people, or cure the conditions that most people in poor countries die from, prematurely. For example, provision of clean water would eliminate a huge proportion of the most deadly pathogens, even polio. But no, we're going to address each water-borne pathogen, one by one, with a vaccine, because we make money out of that.

When George lists how much protein food produced by precision fermentation will contain, requiring 1,700 times less land, less water too, and producing less greenhouse gases, I wondered how these 'facts' were so much more reliable than similar 'facts' that have been published about GM. Of course, for the English guardian, a fact is whatever the mainstream currently holds to be the orthodox view. And that can change. But being a mainstream journalist means you turn with the wind, nothing new about that.

Anyhow, since the English guardian has become such an evangelist for techno-fixes, perhaps they would consider the much hyped Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Generation (NLG), in particular. Using the online (free) version of GPT3, you can take the first paragraph of George's encyclical:

"Let’s focus for a moment on technology. Specifically, what might be the most important environmental technology ever developed: precision fermentation."

And the result you get is:

"The technology has been around for decades, of course, but it was never used to tackle a big environmental problem. Now it is. Precision fermentation is the technology that will allow us to make the next generation of biofuels. It is also the technology that will help us make a new generation of medicines, including antibiotics. And, if we can find a way to use precision fermentation to make food, it will help us feed the world."

A little bit of editorial work could make that indistinguishable from something penned by the venerable man himself. It goes on:

"Precision fermentation is a technology that allows us to control the environment in which microorganisms grow. We can control the temperature, the pH, the amount of oxygen, and the nutrients. We can also control the genes of the microorganisms. This means that we can make microorganisms do what we want them to do. This technology has already had a big impact on the world of medicine. We now have vaccines that are made with precision fermentation. We also have a new generation of antibiotics that are made with precision fermentation. And, we are just beginning to explore the potential of precision fermentation to make new medicines."

The Natural Language Generation tool goes on about producing biofuels using the precision fermentation process. Can this be done? Because even the guardian can't control what precision fermentation (or GM, or NLG, or any other techno-utopian next big thing) is used for.

But here's another question: how do we know that NLG isn't already being used by the mainstream media? A lot of BBC articles are clearly written using a template, with a few bits shuffled around. How do we know George didn't use it when he was writing the article in question, or that he won't use it in the future?

I don't think anyone would mistake the unedited paragraphs for the work of a human. But if any mainstream media baron were to think how much money they could save on expensive columnists (note that the guardian article appears in their ironically titled section 'comment is free'), there's no telling what 'solutions' they'd stoop to. As long as they don't print 3D, plant-based versions of George himself. And I'm now imagining the movie: 'Being George Monbiot'.

But I digress. Or do I?

Who Killed Schrödinger's Environmentalist?

GMWatch reports that the former activist George Monbiot is teaming up with his good friend, the publicity hungry Mark Lynas. Monbiot has decided that EU organic targets need to be scrutinised (which is a good point, nothing should go unquestioned). But he also aligns himself with the 'ecomodernist' movement. The process of 'modernising' includes deregulation, neoliberalism, corporate takeover and other phenomena that Monbiot (and even Lynas, a long time ago) once opposed.

Monbiot seems to be joining the GM lobby in shedding crocodile tears about the need to 'feed the world', as if outlandishly expensive and embarrassingly unproductive technologies were ever about anything beyond serving the interests of those who owned it. Is he going to promote the highly destructive glyphosate, which is designed to systematically wipe out everything in its path except genetically modified organisms, which are completely resistant to the pesticide (for a while)?

Perhaps Monbiot himself has developed resistance to the dangerous lies of the likes of Bayer Monsanto (Zyclon B, HIV contaminated blood products, Roundup, etc)? Taking money from the Gates Foundation to promote GM organisms, as Lynas does, wouldn't be such a big step for Monbiot. He already works for one of the most slippery neoliberal organs, the (English) Guardian, whose 'Global' development section is bought and paid for by Gates's 'Foundation'.

Monbiot claims that he and his neoliberal apologist friends don't agree on everything. That's good to hear. Such as? About 10 years ago, Lynas wheeled out GM as a 'solution' to staple food price increases, threatened shortages and famine in East Africa. Even a former activist should know that famine is not a result of a country's inability to produce enough food, and that rapidly increasing prices were a result of commodity speculation in rich countries, including the UK.

Committed environmentalists have campaigned for GM to be recognised for what it is: a technology for taking over global food production, controlling it with any legal, political, (un)scientific, (im)moral or other means, and using that position of global domination to make the owners of GM and other controlling technologies as rich and powerful as possible.

The English Guardian, BBC and other 'liberal' media have made it absolutely clear where they stand on the issue of global domination. They are completely in favour of it, as long as they are the ones in control, on the 'right' side of history. They will go to any lengths to ensure that all legal, political, scientific, moral and other means are in accord with their agenda (or vice versa, it's often hard to tell).

Ecomodernism is what's left over when you stamp out every vestige of humanity, sincerity and fellow feeling. It's tempting to say it's a form of greenwashing, but it's more like a pesticide that wipes out all opposition, a kind of branding iron that you can use to punish all detractors, and warn the devout to keep their distance.