Regarding your opinion on genetically modified food in reponse to question #712: Given how we in our hierarchical society think today, I agree that use of genetically modified foods will fuel our overpopulation catastrophe and will likely encourage domination of food production by a few companies. I also agree that if the world is going to be saved, that it will be done by those thinking very differently than we do today.

Trying to think differently on the subject, do you think it’s possible to use genetically modified foods to manage/limit food production like your hypothetical feeder in the cage? For example, this year we decide to genetically grow, distribute, and eat only X amount of food to feed our human population of X + 1.

Put another way, could genetically modified food serve as a useful means for producing, distributing, and tracking food production on a scale necessary for the taker culture to manage these processes and stop fueling the cycle of increased food production and population explosion?

Obviously, this type of decision-making would require cooperation and organization by many people with changed minds. Unfortunately, I am woefully unknowledgeable about genetically modified foods, and given your wide-ranging studies, I figured you might have an opinion on whether trying to change minds in this direction makes any sense.

I’ve been hearing a lot of discussion lately regarding transhumanism, gene therapy, using nanobots to clean people’s arteries and eat cancer cells. I’m aware of the DARPA project to create “superhumans” in the military.

Primarily, all of this talk seems to be geared toward the idea of prolonging individual lives . . . fighting human degeneration. Many authors who are products of Mother Culture debate whether the applications of these technologies will create a utopia or a dystopia.

It seems that the ramifications of this technological “paradigm shift” on our population crisis are pretty obvious, but I assume that there are other factors (maybe even positive global factors) that I am not considering.

I’m curious as to your opinion regarding all of this technology. Furthermore, I’m wondering if maybe you could go over some pros and cons for these technologies as well as the technologies that are products of biomimicry.

I am troubled by your answer to question #637. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your intent, but as I read your answer you are denigrating the idea that “exploiting natural resources to human advantage” might be a good thing to do for the people that the Peace Corps volunteers are trying to help, that is people who live a marginal or even a sub-marginal existence.

Even keeping in mind that “development” can be, and generally has been, very destructive, your answer seems to exclude any consideration of the possibility of “sustainable development” as a workable and useful concept.

I’m not quite clear about your stance on birth control. You say in The Story of B that you have no problem with birth control. But at the end of Ishmael, the student implies that we live in the society we live in because we don’t want to live at the mercy of the gods.

However, birth control seems to me to be a matter of trying not to live at the hands of the gods. It seems as though it is a contradiction to say that we create problems by refusing to live in the hands of the gods, but at the same time saying you have no problem with people using birth control.

I guess I would most like you to clear up your stance on your feelings toward the use of artificial contraception.

If you have been watching the news recently, you must have seen something about how a company called Clonaid has claimed to have cloned the first human baby.

Clonaid is also in a way, a branch of a new religion movement called Raelian that believes man was made a long time ago by aliens who genetically created us in labs. I guess this belief isn’t that much different from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief, neither can accept that we evolved from “common slime.” The leader said that their long term goal is to use cloning to give humans eternal life.

What is your opinion on this subject? Do you think these people will ever achieve their goal? Do you think they will be allowed to? If they do, what do you think the effects on this world will be?

I wish I could take a course on Leaver vs. Taker society or something. Anyway . . . One current dilemma of mine is technology. Now, I know that you’ve said that Leavers aren’t inherently technology deficient, but in a Leaver society, I can’t see what the impetus for scientific advance would be.

I guess I’m calling technology and scientific advance products. If Taker economy is an economy of products, and Leaver economy one of services, where COULD the products come from? Who would bother?

With the up-coming 2000 presidential election upon us, I was wondering how you feel about the whole thing. Personally I figured you’d be a man to vote for the voice of reason in this whole thing, Nader.

It has clearly been shown by the continuously falling numbers in voters, which means the Democrats and Republicans alike are not doing their job. Most of us feel we’re not important to this country anymore and that our vote does not matter.

Either way I understand that you do not condone this current system we have because eventually it will, and it will, collapse in a giant heap of rubble. But, where do you stand?