RATs Monsanto [Again] and Bayer [Real American Terrorists] Hide Bee Damage

Barry, My Liege :

When corporations buy science so that the science shows that corporate actions do not harm people when the reality is that their actions do harm people, they are terrorists.

Now it comes that a class of insecticide is killing bees at an alarming rate. If there are no bees, there will be no fruits, vegetables or flowers.

The insecticides are applied in huge amounts to entire fields of plants.

The bees are dying.

Scientists across the world are studying the interactions of "..neonicotinoid pesticides on pollinators and the impact of the EU ban on three neonicotinoid pesticides on farmers' crop growing practices."

Read the article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, DO, here : http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/08/12/neonicotinoids-bee-deaths.aspx?x_cid=20140812_nonlead_facebookdoc

The thing is, My Liege, both Bayer and Monsanto, both of which make significant profits selling the products, are providing grant money to some of the scientists in the study.

The conclusion is inescapable: Monsanto and Bayer are buying science so that their actions harming people for money will be unnoticed.

This is not acceptable, my Liege.

Your faithful servant,

On Greed

Barry, My Liege :

The HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK in this space presents a gloomy future event for our species.

Let us be clear about the concept.

There will be no escape from this event, neither for the privileged nor the weak.

It will be Biblical in its proportions.

All will die.

The HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK's prediction is based on logical projections of current trends.

This raises two questions.

The first question asks whether or not the event is preventable with species-wide behavioral changes.

Regarding the first question: Even with resolute and extreme behaviorial changes, it is likely that the earth system is already damaged irreparably and cannot be repaired in time to save our species.

There remains a remote possiblity that such behaviorial changes, if instituted, may affect the event's outcome.

It is a remote possibility.

And, it is all we have.

The second question asks: What is the likelihood that our species can change its behavior sufficiently?

Regarding the second question, the collective behavior changes are so fundamental to our societies that it is HIGHLY unlikely that we will change in time to have any efffect.

Our current behaviors are driven by simple greed. It is not enough that we are greedy and see no fault in harming our neighbor's family and future for the sake of a monetary gain. We have made greed the basis of our economic system and have exalted it to a virtue.

The simple fact is that we cannot afford greed any longer.

Greed is bad.

Greed will murder 7 billion people through violence, disease and hunger.

Greed has always been a poison in our system, but now it is controlling.

If by some magic we can recognize that simple truth, perhaps we can change our decision making systems.

But, in order to change the event, we will need to make ALL decisions based on likely effects on our species.

While this space can suggest numerous specific actions toward the goal of saving our species, such discussions appear pointless until and unless a political consensus on the need for such changes arises.

Now, perhaps it will be enough simply to make the case while postponing discussions of specific remedies until our species presents the will for change.

Your faithful servant,