TaN: Aside from “superfoods” and “superweeds”, “super bugs” are also fiction – a product of unscientific and un-informed minds. To reiterate for the nth time, there are no such things as “supers” in the world. All things behave as they have been designed and intended by nature. There is nothing “super” about it.
All that is needed for an organism to survive in the world is present in its genetic material. It is but a matter of switching on or off the correct and appropriate combination set of genes that will direct and produce the proper group of proteins to perform a needed task.
In the case of “super bugs”, they are merely ordinary organisms that have the positions of their genetic switches changed so as to ensure its survival or to go into a certain pre-programmed mode – as in, into a dormant state or into attack mode. This is precisely the case when certain microorganisms that are normally “inert” or docile abruptly turns hostile.
In the pleomorphism (or somatid) theory advanced by Antoine Beauchamp – the archrival of Louis Pasteur and his “germ theory” – microscopic creatures behave in a certain manner depending on the conditions of the environment. The bacteria and microbes in our bodies – which normally assist us in digesting our food so our bodies can draw nourishment – are beneficial only because our bodies are usually provide an alkaline environment. The moment the acid-alkaline balance tilts past a certain point and become acidic, these same beneficial creatures “switch” to their “dark side” and commences to attack the host. Many are puzzled as to why this happens. And it is because of this disbelief that people generally “choose” not to believe this truth.
The explanation is quite simple if our minds are open or willing to accept the truth. In nature, an alkaline state represents life and an acidic state represents death (or dying). When the body becomes too acidic, the beneficial microbes will “think” that their host is dying or death and they go into decomposition mode. They begin the process of decomposing the host so that its organic material will be broken down to be recycled to other life forms that may need them.
This also explains why, in a closed room, when a person with the flu sneezes, s/he infects everyone but only some will develop symptoms and “catch” the flu. These are the people whose bodies are borderline acidic and once the flu virus is taken in by their bodies, the virus “recognizes” the acidic environment and this triggers it into attack mode. Those who bodies are alkaline will cause the virus to think that the host is healthy so there is no need to begin the decomposition process.
So, to return to the original statement, “superfoods” are merely ordinary foods that have the proper health nutrients in abundance, “superweeds” are but ordinary weeds that have their specific genes (that resist or defend against a particular type of chemical or pesticide) activated, and “super bugs” have their anti-antibiotic genes switched on. These “super” characteristics are already present in their genetic material/sequence but just have not been triggered – because there was not need for them to go into effect.
Finally, there is also the HGT (horizontal gene transfer) theory that argues that microorganisms – i.e., bacteria, viruses, et al – have the ability to share and acquire “new” genetic material and this may give them an advantage to better survive and prosper. This theory could answer how microorganisms are able to acquire new traits but it brings up some interesting queries: (1) does the new genetic material replace or add to the existing DNA? (2) is there a process by which the new genetic material is incorporated/integrated into the existing DNA or is it random? and, (3) is there a selection process done by the microorganism or does it just “absorb” any floating genetic material that happens to be within its reach? This will be interesting to know, indeed.
In any case, whether the new ability originates internally or externally, the fact remains that there is nothing super about it. They are merely following the dictates of natural law.
TaN: Things should go from being for sale or for profit to being free (of charge) – this is progress – and not the other way around, which is retrogression. I came to this notion during the issue of the local government passing an ordinance charging a garbage fee to be collected from each household.
It is incomprehensible to me that something that was once free can be not-so anymore. To further worsen the matter, the reason given by the local government is that the fee will be used to increase the financial status. This reason is not only absurd but sets a very dangerous precedence – prone to abuse (of local government power). It opens and paves the way for future repetitions for similar frivolous and irresponsible reasons.
The next time the local government decides it needs to increase or supplement its financial status, what is there to stop it from imposing another of their cockameme “fund-raising” schemes based on some ridiculous and unsustainable or unsupportably lame alibi.
To return to the original issue, so it does not make sense that something that used to be free can (abruptly or for little or no apparent reason) become for-profit. The only probable justifiable reason would be that the supply of what used to be free has become so scarce that one must subsequently and consequently pay for it, otherwise something previously free should remain (forever and indefinitely) free.
The natural evolution of events may be progressive or retrogressive – progressive is when the transition is from less or inferior to more or superior while retrogressive is the other way. Inanimate nature is said to be retrogressive while living nature is said to be progressive. Retrogression in inanimate nature means that it commences from an orderly state or abundance and deteriorates into a chaotic or dilapidated state or scarcity, whereas living nature progresses from a state of disorder or disassembly or from scarcity to a system or an organized state or to a plenty.
Retrogression in inanimate nature can be seen in the decaying or decomposition of dead organic matter or in old unoccupied structures such as buildings and spans. Progression in living nature can be evidenced in ant colonies and bee hives where lone queens start out on its own and expand into societies or in a few pioneering migrating families and grow into cities, states, and nations.
In the case of agriculture, man started with great difficulty trying to grow food using primitive technology but, as time passed, we discovered and gained wisdom and improved our food production to the point that it is said we are now producing more food – per unit of land area – as never before. In fact, it has been said that we grow so much food that no one should hunger, let alone starve.
If we follow the argument of progression of living nature to its natural conclusion, there should be more and more things that should become free – those that were once had to be paid for. However, this is not happening not because there is a flaw in the argument but because a cabal of unscrupulous global and power elite has been consolidating its stranglehold on the world and are orchestrating and dictating world events – manipulating the distribution of goods (and services) for the purpose of amassing untold wealth for themselves.
It has already been reported (over and over again) that there is so much food in the world that it is unimaginable that anyone will be hungry. Global hunger is more a problem of distribution that anything else – and definitely not of (food) production.