GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS EXPLAINED IN PLAIN LANGUAGE WITH RHIO Author of Hooked on Raw
SATURDAY OCTOBER 28th, 2006 --- 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM $ 10.00 PER PERSON // SPACE IS LIMITED ADVANCE RESERVATION REQUIRED
Genetically Engineered Foods Explained in Plain Language
In this lecture, you will learn the who, what, why, where and how of GE issues. You will also learn what other countries have done to protect their citizens and the environment, and what we can do here to get the same protections and rights. At least 70% of all GE foods are grown in the US, with Canada and Argentina making up most of the balance. The food fight of the century began in the US and what happens here will be pivotal to defeating this technology worldwide.
After learning about the threat to the integrity of Mother Nature and human and animal health posed by the genetic engineering of seeds/plants, Rhio attended numerous lectures to learn about the subject. As a layperson, she found it difficult to decipher the scientific language used by the geneticists, but she stayed the course until she had an understanding.
Rhio found the arrogance and greed that comprises most of the biotechnology industry and the information about what they are doing to be so shocking and abhorrent that she decided to break it down into plain language so that anyone could understand it and she has been sharing the information ever since.
The evening will begin with some original songs sung by Rhio and her partner, Leigh.
Rhio is a singer and author, as well as an investigative reporter in the area of health and environmental issues. Rhio is of Hungarian-Cuban descent, raised in the U.S., but completely fluent in Spanish. Her first book, Hooked on Raw, is about living a life more closely aligned with Nature by adopting a raw/live food lifestyle. The 358-page book also covers many reasons for making these healthy lifestyle changes, as well as more than 350 raw gourmet recipes in all categories.
As a performer Rhio has appeared on over 50 TV shows. Currently she is completing her third and fourth CD albums, one of which will tackle environmental issues.
CNN and American Journal aired stories on raw foods featuring Rhio. She is considered an expert in the area of raw and living foods.
Rhio hosts an internet radio show called Hooked on Raw which can be heard worldwide at: www.TribecaRadio.net
A website: www.rawfoodinfo.com also provides extensive information on the raw/live food lifestyle, as well as organic agriculture, environmental, human rights, civil rights, globalization and economic justice issues.
Rhio lectures both on the raw/live food lifestyle and the genetic engineering of seeds/plants.
On the horizon: Rhio and her partner Leigh, are fledgling eco farmers in Upstate New York with a focus on growing edible wild foods, leafy greens and lettuces, fruit and nuts.
LOCATION: 42 NEW ENGLAND DRIVE, RAMSEY, NJ 07446 (North of Paramus, 40 minutes from New York City) RESERVATIONS: KHRANZI@AOL.COM – PHONE (201) 934-1758
Rights for Animals recognise the substantial part that language plays in cementing or changing the way in which other animals are treated by our society. Central to this issue is the debate as to whether animal rights campaigners in addressing the public should refer to practices involving nonhumans as animal ‘use’, ‘exploitation’, ‘abuse’, ‘slavery’ or ‘oppression’. While Rights for Animals regard all these terms as accurate descriptions of practices using animals, we are critical as to the tactical virtues of each one in our campaigning for an end to those practices. There seem to arguments in favour of and against each term, considering that using nonhuman animals in a way that harms them is indeed intolerable abuse and exploitation. In reality there is virtually no distinction between use and abuse of animals (humans and nonhumans) unless no harm is inflicted on them.
The case for the terms 'exploitation' and 'abuse'
'Use' is the word that those who want to defend the idea that we may exploit nonhumans employ. Such terminology makes animals seem just like objects or tools that just get used. According to this, it seems that animal rights activists should counter this in their language: they should label 'use' for what it is - exploitation and abuse. They should describe it as slavery. Otherwise a chasm can be opened between the exploitation of humans and the exploitation of nonhumans. One has trouble imagining anti-slavery campaigners of old referring to slavery as ‘the use’ of those humans who were enslaved. Or feminists solely talking of ‘the use of females for male purposes'. It's oppression. In order to equate human and nonhuman exploitation, this should be reflected in the language we employ.
The case for a term such as ‘use’
On the other hand, it can be claimed that terms such as exploitation or abuse can often be confusing. The problem is how do people understand what abuse or exploitation is? Most of the public understand these as causing wanton or unnecessary harm. So people think that we are abusing nonhumans, for instance, not by killing them for producing food, but only by keeping them in “bad” conditions, kicking them during their transport, causing them extra suffering when they are being killed, and so on.
In fact, welfarist propaganda has no problem with using these same terms: while it accepts practices such as eating nonhumans it derides as abuse practices such as skinning them alive.
This would then be the reason why slogans against ‘the use of animals’ as such would help to question speciesism and its consequences better than those that oppose ‘animal abuse’ or ‘animal exploitation’. For that reason, ‘use’ would appear to be at the end of the day a much more radical term. Virtually everyone agrees with the claim that abusing or exploiting animals is unacceptable. But arguing that using animals in any way in which you inflict harm on them is unacceptable is different. No possible confusion here, no possible welfarist interpretation of the message: we are putting it crystal clear. Now, of course, there’s one condition to this: it is by all means necessary to use those same terms when we are speaking of humans.
Perhaps a good solution would be to combine all these terms so that the idea that using someone (in a way which harms him or her) means abuse or exploitation. Although the problem with this could be that such explanations are not always explicit.
On the other hand, terms ‘slavery’ or 'oppression' don’t seem to be problematic in the way that has been commented. The reason for this is that they don’t denote a particular treatment of someone at a certain point, but rather a general state of affairs in which a group is downtrodden by others. Furthermore, the terms ‘slavery’ and ‘oppression’ are also a valid description of animal usage but haven’t widely become inappropriately associated with only an extreme fraction of animal usage like the terms ‘abuse’ and ‘exploitation’ have.
A woman accused of using racial epithets while waiting for food at a Connecticut Taco Bell drive-through window was arrested Wednesday.
Jennifer Farrelly, 19, of East Windsor, has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace. Farrelly's boyfriend, Eric Satterlee, 22, of Ashford, was charged with breach of peace in the incident.
On Dec. 18, Farrelly and Satterlee became frustrated by the slow service at the Taco Bell restaurant on Brookside Place, according to an arrest warrant. Farrelly banged on the drive-through window and called the Taco Bell attendant, Jamelle Byrd, a racial epithet, according to the warrant. Satterlee allegedly cursed and banged on the window.
Farrelly denied using racial epithets when she was interviewed by police, saying Byrd caused the dispute by ridiculing her for parking her car far away from the drive-through window, the warrant states. Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.
Chances are you have never heard of the neural code. And yet, from both a practical and philosophical perspective, the neural code is the most important remaining scientific mystery. Analogous to the machine code of a digital computer, the neural code is the software, set of rules, syntax, that transforms electrical pulses in the brain into perceptions, memories, decisions. A solution to the neural code could – in principle – give us almost unlimited power over our psyches, because we could monitor and manipulate brain cells with exquisite precision by speaking to them in their own private language.
The neural code is such a dauntingly complex, technical topic – overlapping with nonlinear dynamics, information theory, and other esoteric fields – that it receives little publicity beyond specialized journals. Moreover, until recently a complete decoding of the brain seemed impossibly remote, because researchers had limited means of probing the microcircuitry of living brains. Trying to glean the neural code with external scanning methods such as magnetic- resonance imaging or electroencephalography is like trying to learn English by standing outside a baseball stadium and listening to the roar of the crowd. But just in the past decade researchers have begun crafting arrays of microelectrodes that can eavesdrop on hundreds and even thousands of separate neurons simultaneously, and they have acquired ever-more-powerful computers and algorithms for analyzing data.
The immediate goal of many neural-code researchers is producing “neural prostheses” for the disabled. By far the most successful neural prosthesis is the artificial cochlea. More than 80,000 people have been equipped with these devices, which restore at least rudimentary hearing by feeding signals from an external microphone to the auditory nerve. Work on other prostheses is proceeding more slowly. Artificial retinas, light-sensitive chips that mimic the eye’s signal-processing ability and stimulate the optical nerve or visual cortex, have been tested in a handful of blind subjects, but they usually “see” nothing more than phosphenes, or bright spots.
Several groups have recently shown that monkeys can control computers and robotic arms “merely by thinking,” as media accounts invariably put it – not telekinetically but via implanted electrodes picking up neural signals. The potential for empowering the paralyzed is obvious, but so far only a few experiments with humans have been carried out, with limited success. A program to create chips that can restore the memory of those afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease or other disorders is still a year or two away from testing in rats.
The National Institutes of Health and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (darpa) nonetheless see enough promise in this research to pump millions into it every year. darpa is less interested in treating the disabled than in enhancing the cognitive capacities of healthy soldiers. darpa officials have broached the prospect of cyborg warriors downloading complex fighting procedures directly into their brains, like the heros of The Matrix; controlling jets with their thoughts, like Clint Eastwood in the old flick Firefox; or being remotely controlled, like the assassin in the recent remake of The Manchurian Candidate. “Implanting electrodes into healthy people is not something we’re going to do any time soon,” a darpa official told me recently. “But 20 years ago, no one would have thought we’d put a laser in the eye either. So this is an agency that leaves the door open to what’s possible.”
Beyond these bionic possibilities, neural-code research could have a dramatic impact on artificial intelligence, which has thus far failed to deliver on its promise of creating truly intelligent machines. If the brain’s programming tricks can be transferred to computers and robots, they may finally become as clever as hal in 2001 and c3po in Star Wars. In perhaps the most fantastic scenario of all, long envisioned by AI mavens such as Marvin Minsky and Ray Kurzweil, mastery of the neural code might allow us to transform our psyches into software programs – strings of ones and zeros – that can be downloaded into machines, where we will live forever in cyberspace. Finally, the neural code could represent the key to one of philosophy’s oldest and deepest conundrums – the mind-body problem – in the following way: all codes involve the transformation of purely physical phenomena – the positioning of base pairs in a dna strand, the flow of electrons in a computer, the scratch of a pen on paper – into information, which transcends the physical realm. By revealing how the brain transforms a physical process such as the firing of a neuron into information and even meaning, another non-physical phenomena, the neural code may reveal how mere matter becomes a mind. Who knows? Maybe we’ll even solve the riddle of free will. We may finally understand how this wrinkled lump of jelly in our skulls generates a unique self with a sense of personal identity and autonomy, a self that perceives, emotes, remembers, imagines, chooses, acts, creates.
Neuroscientists are still far from converging on a solution to the neural code. They are embroiled in debates over whether informationis represented primarily by signals from individual neurons, by many neurons firing in lockstep, by even higher-level waves of chaotic electrical activity sweeping through the brain, or all of the schemes above and more. These disputes have led some theorists to warn that the neural code may never be fully deciphered. But 60 years ago, some biologists feared the genetic code was too complex to crack. Then in 1953 Francis Crick and James Watson unraveled the structure of dna, and researchers quickly established that the double helix mediates an astonishingly simple genetic code governing the heredity of all organisms.
Science’s success in deciphering the genetic code, which has culminated in the Human Genome Project, has been widely acclaimed – and with good reason, because knowledge of our genetic makeup could allow us to reshape our fundamental nature. A solution to the neural code could, in principle, give us much greater, more direct control over ourselves than mere genetic manipulation. It is not too soon to start pondering the potential consequences of this achievement. How will knowledge of the neural code be used, and by whom? Who will be liberated, and who enslaved?
John Horgan, former senior writer at Scientific American, is author of, most recently, Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment.
The sun in the North is a
temporary guestWho brings
with him much warmth and
light when he comesFor a
few precious months every
year he keepsUs company
through night and day He
makes the trees green, he
makes flowers bloomHe
makes the birds sing, and
The largest genocide in
human history happened
where? Most people would
answer Germany, and the
Actually though, the
largest genocide happened
in the USA, with the
native American Indians,
with estimates of 19
million to 100 millio...
Radiation Study; Tokyo
Hayno, R.S., et al
of Adults and Children 7
to 20 Months After the
Fukushima NPP Accident as
Measured by Extensive
Surveys, Proc. Jpn....
accumulates in water
supplies after nuclear
bioconcentrates in fish
that live in fresh water
and salt water. Runoff of
fresh water from land
which has been
contaminated ends up
contaminating oceans, and
66 Atomic Bombs were
exploded on the Bikini
Island Atolls. Hundreds
of islanders were removed
from the islands, but not
from harms way. One
hydrogen bomb exploded
near the islands, and the
children played with the
dust from the bomb, as it
"Under our current law,
a suspected terrorist on
the FBI's No-Fly List
can't board an airplane
-- but they can still
legally purchase guns and
This loophole, known
Germany added more
solar panels in one
month, than the US did in
ONE YEAR. Nearly 1/3 of
Germany power output is
handled by bottoms up
solar energy during the
middle of the day. The
transition to a 100%
renewable energy nation
is in process. T...
According to the Old
Testament, which defines
all of the 'rules' of
traditional marriage, the
above examples are all of
the ways that couples can