This is a section with some considerations and reflections that emerged during the development of the project and the synthesis of what was learned, researched, and experienced during these months of work. Much of what is written here is not a rigid position, but an invitation to raise questions and with them, return to looking at others and ourselves.
How is it different from the living, and how does ours come into the all? Are we a part of it, or part of it? Are we someone, where does that leave the rest?
We find it. And sometimes lose it, in a stray bullet, in feelings that find no place, in actions without name.
We create it, we care for it, we misunderstand it, forget it; we believe we destroy it, we transform it. But do we really have such control?
We manipulate it in labs and yet let it slip through our fingers, when scrolling reels.
We pretend to dominate it, and we lose ourselves.
When did “we” become different from “it”?
Does science hurt? Or can people using science hurt others?
Science as a tool for constructing instruments that give power to someone has been used as an element of oppression, but it is not only its use that can give it meaning. The construction of knowledge (not just the constructs) is something that gives power.
Many of us have grown up in a world in which there is “one” truth, which can be determined through the use of reason.
How do we understand other kinds of languages that are based on something other than reason?
Biology, as a science that studies life, has managed to assimilate, in logical terms, essences that go beyond explanation. This could be, for example, some manifestation of spirituality, however it may be configured in an individual, but in order not to take it so far away in something metaphysical, we will leave it in something known and known by all: feeling.
But why? For what purpose?
At least from the social sciences, there is much theory that supports the idea that it is not through democracy or the rule of law that a change of system, to other realities, will be achieved; that true dignity is found in close contact, in sensitivity. As Lorde said, “I feel, therefore I am free.”
Maturana (1998) says that the freedom that arises from knowledge comes from a deeper sense than that of possession and management of information, which brings a transcendence regarding the spirituality that science and technology can hardly conceive on their own, but that can no longer be sustained in religion either. He explicitly seeks to move from the structural determinism of our embodiment to naming a responsibility linked to the freedom of knowledge, of reflection, grounded in its terms from the understanding of the living; of life.
Citing himself along with Verden-Zoller from their 1993 publication, Maturana states:
"Love and knowledge are not alternatives; love is a foundation while knowledge is an instrument." - Maturana, 1998
It may then seem contradictory to refer to notions deemed spiritual here from an exercise of unifying paradigms that, partially—because we have not explored all their possibilities—reduces the human to something that can be restricted to formulas and laws. But I believe that the very act of seeking to move beyond a category, a way of understanding the world, questioning, and delving into another leads to the rupture of many dynamics in which, as Maturana and Verden-Zoller mention, we can find the other—something truly vital for surviving in a world at war.
When did the human split from nature? When did man split from human?
The human being as a living being has had several moments of rupture throughout history in which it has been separated from other organisms. For each culture there will be a conception where the human is recognized in a particular way, but a possible stable starting point at this moment can be found in modernity, where in a world divided into north and south, between the west and the rest, materialism and rationalism reign until now as the dominant way in which we understand the world, at least from a cultural perspective. It is under such a context that we can establish a point of bifurcation between our species and the others from how we conceive ourselves. Having said this, let us begin with Descartes who from his epistemic subject seeks to reach the truth from a separation from others and even a division of himself starting from what he has control over, from his rationality; a condition that gives him control not only over psychological and social forces, but also over natural ones, (Induni, 2008). Finally, we have a subject whose environment exists and is configured from the way he looks at it and therefore at his disposal. From this starting point we can give continuity to the relationships from which we link ourselves to our environment, filtered and constructed by a globalized culture at this time but which ultimately responds to the same principles of distinction and materiality.
If we place ourselves in the epistemic part, it is easy to see how the material relations with which the world operates today are derived from it, which, with great technological possibilities and clouded mentalities, have forgotten simple but sustainable relations over time. Of course, Descartes is not responsible for all this, but he was an important first step in sustaining the current modes of operation based on modern thought.
Even so, with well-established systems, there are still other ways of conceiving the world, which although for a long time had no place in the academy, there are now possibilities of collaboration. These knowledges with sustenance of diverse natures, not necessarily governed by rationality, do not require entering universities or museums, they do not require indoctrination, but the joint contemplation of epistemologies of the south together with the west can offer different scopes. We have in this intermediate space a wide range of theoretical and practical possibilities that, from community meetings to seminars and independent magazines, are already on the way to this proposal.
What are the implications of understanding ourselves as distinct from nature?
These questions are not really to justify genetic engineering as something natural. Paradigms such as iusnaturalism and positivism limit and appropriate the term naturalness to justify exercises of power, dynamics of domination and coloniality, which is not the intention here. On the contrary. Here we seek to question our relationships with the world.
Since in any season of the year we can go and find in the supermarket food that used to respond to a climate and a region, it has been easy to lose sight of the relationships we have not only with the land itself, but with other forms of life. And to arrive and solve a problem we can sometimes immediately think of modifying an organism, when sometimes we just need to look and understand what was happening before? Just give a little space.
In our case for this project we found a way to integrate both, synthetic biology and the reunion with the cycles. We will see what happens.
Understanding ourselves as something separate from other forms of life has led to their consumption. Why do we eat hamburgers but we find it criminal to see someone making dog tacos (at least in Mexico)? This consumption does not refer only to food, but to the different takes on life, in freedom, dignity, materiality. A little respect could make a big difference, but what does that imply for the rhythm of life we lead?
The Myth of Civilization
As it is mentioned earlier in Integrated Human Practices, at one point we had the opportunity to engage with a community that uses agricultural systems known as milpa, where selected plants maintain an ecosystemic balance in which the populations of organisms they support regulate their own populations. These systems are adapted with native plants for nearly any biome in the country and have existed for millennia. However, agricultural work is rarely conceived as science, due to the collective imaginary that associates science with highly specialized instruments. In this case, for instance, compared to a synthetic biology lab, a grouping of plants may not seem significant, but how much knowledge lies behind this practice?
How do we understand development when genetically modified organisms end up depleting the land, while corn, beans, and chili peppers in the right place can restore it?
Modern synthesis for naming evolution today
How much of the world starts with designating evolution with these words?
Modern in modern synthesis may not be intended to refer to modernity itself as explained by sociology, but it really does fit its principles. This is not a historical-etymological analysis, but a play on words with respect to a concept and what they represent.
Referring to the above, the part of synthesis in a context of modernity speaks doubly of how infused this project is in the conception of evolution. Already a few years ago Lynn Margulis proposed a paradigmatic break in which evolution is based on cooperation, not competition. But if our general understanding of development in the complexity of life is given from separation, we have a science that is based on the construction of individuals, not subjects. How then are we surprised by such an apathetic society?
Encounters and Recognition of Subjects
If the issue of deaths and illnesses due to pollution is one with such deep-rooted origins, and we are aware of this, why should we bother developing this entire project if we know there are things we cannot change? Think globally, act locally. A significant problem in political thinking, at least as we experience it here, is that from the cabinet and from theory, we face a paradox with two polarities: seeking long-term reach and transcendence while being limited to acting and presenting results in just six years—sometimes three, or even less. Unfortunately, that timeframe barely allows for designing and establishing the foundations of a project of the expected magnitude. These perspectives become lost in budgets and reports.
When one does not live in rural areas, it is very easy to forget where food comes from and to remain unaware of what happens to those who produce it. There are organizations, collectives, campaigns, and activism efforts aimed at defending and highlighting the situations faced in rural environments. However, a large portion of the population remains disconnected from these realities. Every person deserves a dignified life, and if this can, to some extent, alleviate the contingencies of the environment, we will continue—just as we have since we embarked on this journey as a vibrant team—fighting for change for those who make it possible for us to have a taco on our table every day.
Although research continues to emerge regarding geopolitics and specific case studies related to health impacts or ecosystem relationships in rural areas, the elements present in the framework have been widely theorized from various paradigms across the globe for decades. The various terms such as regenerative agriculture, permaculture, agroecology, or, in our context, indigenous agriculture—though existing for millennia—have been renamed and popularized worldwide over the past few decades. Nevertheless, field research and engagement with all stakeholders have been essential for understanding this problem within a comprehensible framework that allows us to position ourselves within our real context and assess our course of action.
Returning to the initial questions regarding whether synthetic biology could make a difference and whether it is relevant to apply it in addressing this problem, we have found that it is indeed not only relevant but necessary.
When we speak of understanding the problem, we refer to two principles of intervention: containment and prevention. These two principles are often insufficient for effective implementation in many cases; considering a third principle would be an unimaginable task for the State. However, it has been practiced and advocated by many groups, and we believe it deserves mention here as well: repair.
The logic from which the present and future lines of action are predominantly contemplated responds, among other things, to a limited capacity for articulation and action, the management of a certain government, and its allocated budget, for instance. Or, prior to an electoral campaign aimed at securing a voting population. Nevertheless, even beyond that, repair is a sensitive topic that requires a respectful approach. In our case, when discussing maize, it may involve recovering a crop in the next rotation; however, with the occurrence of intoxication, how does one “repair” a lost life? You cannot.
As a team, we find ourselves limited and do not engage in any actions that respond to these narratives. Nonetheless, we believe it is important to recognize the territories and subjects in their entirety, ensuring that the encounter is honest and sincere—not without falsehoods, but authentic. If what we aim for is to initiate a change, looking back at the roots should not only involve understanding the causes of the problem but also recognizing the roots that have sustained life. The stories, their faces. Because a future and present connected to their roots are stronger.
Finally, some last considerations.
Although it might be sometimes hurtful, for people are not always kind when sharing differences, it was important for us to listen and try to understand all of those who had not a positive opinion upon our work. From academic grounded feedback to public opinion we had some not so encouraging comments. We also found plenty of honest interest and cheerful motivation, but we'd like to dedicate a section to this aspect for it led us to build a solid background on ethics in which we felt comfortable with ourselves.
Once we were told “How dare you call bio a pesticide” …
A group of sociologists at a dining table were shocked, truly fearful. Unknowing of our doings, they wondered “how can someone harness such power” …
A dad who runs a coffee shop, where they promote native corn production, received us politely, but gazed with rage at us. Through all of our conversation he remained calm and respectful, but was not able to believe that genetically engineered organisms could do any good to the world. Too closely had he witnessed devastation upon local producers by GMO´s, that it was truly hard for him to see them otherwise.
And with reason, none of those rejections come out of plain arguments. That made us keep in mind the kind of reach we could have with something like this, the knowledge, the tools; and how in our hands they became a responsibility. To be very careful to not let our possibilities turn into power.