March 22, 2023

Questions About Gain of Function Research

Nothing foments speculation like silence, and the Chinese have been silent on their gain of function research. This begs for speculation. Human beings primarily do research for 2 reasons, remuneration and/or recognition. We will identify a problem or a need and then research for a solution, product or procedure to fix the problem or fill the need and make money in the process marketing it. Sometimes we will do research to improve an existing product or procedure in order to make it function better or manufacture it less expensively in order to make even more money. Then, there is research for research’s sake. It is done primarily for recognition, and it must prove/disprove a theory, improve overall well-being and contribute to human knowledge. Research for research’s sake typically provides little remuneration. E=MC² and Etruscan history have very little commercial value. So I have to ask, why gain of function research? There is no commercial value in it. Even if it were weaponized, it would have very little commercial value. World War I taught us that non-targetable biological weapons are very poor weapons. The fickle winds of war can just as easily blow them back on you, and they encourage your adversaries to retaliate in kind. The only possible market would be the terrorist market, and it is not big enough to justify the cost.

If just looking for recognition and trying to validate a theory that you could alter the virulence of a virus from one species to another, you would take that bat virus and make it virulent to rabbits or guinea pigs, not human beings. Even by doing so, you would still not achieve a lot of recognition having done this in a top-secret government facility.

So, I find myself asking why did China do it? In the next generation or sooner, China will face a significant economic crisis. The population control program they started 30 years ago has been very successful at encouraging single child families. In the next generation, or sooner, they will face a significant labor shortage. If we include those who for whatever reason have no children, those too old to work, those too young to work, those too sick to work, the mentally impaired, the incarcerated, the permanently disabled, full-time government employees and the military, China may find that only 10-15% of its population will be supporting 85-90% of the population. We know China’s record on human rights. Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason for gain of function research is trying to find a way to “thin the herd”. God help me! I hope I am wrong, but silence, total silence, is stimulating an inquiring mind to speculate.

MP

2/28/23

As I begin this blog, I would like to explain my goal in doing so. I would like this to be a vehicle for dissemination of information and stimulation for questioning. As an out-of-the-box thinker, I want to raise out-of-the-box questions that invite responses. I do not want to convert people to believe in my opinions, but rather to raise questions for them to think about and formulate their own opinions. I will begin with the popular topic of “climate change”.

Earth’s climate has been changing, sometimes dramatically, for over 4 billion years. We have seen several global ice ages that have almost totally eradicated all life forms on earth. Obviously, human beings had nothing to do with this. Some of these ice ages have occurred because of the rapid reduction of atmospheric methane, and others because of the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere. They were all followed by “global warming”. It’s debatable if human beings can rapidly alter this climate change with anything we do other than an allout thermonuclear war. It’s kind of like turning the Titanic once the iceberg was sited. It’s intuitive that we recognize what we have done to our environment. We understand the importance of personal cleanliness, keeping our homes clean, keeping our neighborhoods clean and keeping the environment clean. Yet it is human nature to contaminate the environment. If there was ever a totally eco-friendly civilization, they left no record and are unknown to us. Archaeologists study extinct civilizations by the garbage they leave behind.

I do not want to minimize the importance of a clean environment, I only question if human behavior can drastically and expeditiously alter climate changes already in process. I would like to compare this to a looming catastrophic problem that is not getting any attention whatsoever anywhere except by the CCP in China. That problem is unsustainable population growth. Estimated world population in 1800 was about one billion and 120 years later (1920), 2 billion. In 1960, world population had grown to 3 billion, and by 2022 (60 years later) it had almost tripled to over 8 billion. Using these growth rates, we could extrapolate a world population in excess of 15 billion by the end of this century with mathematical certainty. US population could easily exceed 8 hundred million. Experts, however, anticipate a declining birthrate and perhaps a decline in world population by mid century, probably secondary to limited food supply and disease, which will limit world population to 10-12 billion by the end of the century. This potential global famine and pandemic will affect virtually all of the young people currently alive as well as all of those to be born in the next 80 years.

Radically reducing the production of hydrocarbon related energy will accelerate and exacerbate the looming population crisis. In the event of natural disasters with destruction of the electric power grid, such as floods, earthquakes or hurricanes, how do we expeditiously evacuate victims? How do we expeditiously insert rescue equipment and supplies into large population areas where the power grid has been destroyed? How do we rebuild? The currently estimated death toll from the recent earthquake in Turkey may reach 56,000. The higher the population census/density, the higher the casualty rate will be in the future.

I wonder how many American farms can afford the $1,000,000 plus cost of purchasing all electric farm equipment? Will the rural grid be able to sustain the daily needs of charging this equipment? If the cost of eggs is high today, what will it be when our population has doubled? Will the reduction of hydrocarbon related pesticides and fertilizers further reduce the crop yield? Even if we are able to artificially produce enough essential amino acids, lipids and carbohydrates, serving them on artificial cellulose like dog food, these will almost certainly be petroleum byproducts as well.

Just something to think about and chew on.

MP