• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

GMO/Synthehuasca: Would You Take It?

Migrated topic.
Nathanial.Dread

Nathanial.Dread

Esteemed member
Idea: using CRISPR/Cas-9 technology, take the enzymes required to biosynthesize DMT out of some plant that naturally does it, and express them in yeast, along with the same set of enzymes necessary for some MAOI compound.

Make sure you got high enough expression that both compounds present in large quantities (say .5-2% dry weight), and presumably you could, if the yeast is viable, grow it in vats, collect it once it's flocculated off, and it would be ready to go right then - it could be eaten 'raw' (as a yeasty goop), dried, or extracted.

So the question for The Nexus is:

Would you take GMO Ayahuasca?

Blessings
~ND
 
Could this yeast be made into a warm, buttery, sourdough-type roll? 😁

Kidding aside I eat GMO stuff when I dine out, which is often, but in my home I eat solely organic and non-GMO. I try to minimize the amount I consume "just in case," but I do not like to make sweeping generalizations about GMOs. I do about pesticides, but those actually say "This will give you cancer" on the bottle.

I think that most people would not care if it was GMO if it was guaranteed to be 100% safe and byproduct-free, but this is where the issue comes in. How can this be known, especially by a non-scientist like myself, for a GMO product? But for this hypothetical situation, if it was just DMT and MAOI in yeast and nothing much else, I would definitely consume it.
 
Yes i would...dmt is dmt. Its not like you would eat "genetically modified dmt". DMT isn't alive...but then, i might be wrong :lol:

I don't really understand why GMOs are supposed to be "evil" per se. Regular breeding also modifies organisms genetically, albeit in a less direct way.

A few interesting Threads on this:


Kind of related:

 
I would give it a chance too.
I would use this process for ibogaïne too, this GMO yeast could help a lot with different sourcing or sustainability problems we have right now.
Now, of course, this should not make a toxic toll for it to be worthy.
 
obli, GMOs are often regarded as evil and for good reason.

Too many reasons to list, but some of them are:

They are unhealthy and the modified genes inserted into food can live on in our bodies after we have digested the food.

Since genetically modified foods were introduced to our diets, the rate of chronic disease has nearly doubled in our country. That is a fact, they havenn't linked it scientifically to GMO's but that is what they think the main culprit is.

GMO crops contaminate other local crops, poisoning their dna, and then once the plants grow, monsanto sues them for using their genes! not made up there are several huge lawsuits going on right now about this. Monsanto wants to stamp out small farmers and organic food at all costs. They are straight up evil.

All the info claiming GMO is safe, is doctored info coming from the conglomorate corporations themselves, believing it is believing their propoganda. WHen independent scientists verify their claims, they often get contradictary results.

THe creation of gmo plants can have side effects we do not even yet know about, but in theory bad mutations could occur...

And perhaps the worst and most obvious evil is that they destroy natural biodiversity! This is not allowing nature to take its course and is killing off potentially beneficial dna to certain plants! They are also terrible for the environment cause they are often pesticide and herbicide resistant, allowing the greedy pigs to use more pesticide and herbicede.

The best thing you can do is not support GMO at all, buy nothing GMO and intentionally buy things that are NON GMO. People are becoming more health concious and if many people do this it could change the way things work.

Cheers
 
I probly wouldn't, if for no other reason than I prefer psilocybin to DMT anyway so if it came down to a situation where I had to grow GMO yeast to get any DMT, I would just be happy with my mushrooms. Now, for some 5-MeO-DMT on the other hand..
 
Most definitely.

I try to eat healthy for the most part and generally avoid GMO's when I buy food for myself, but nonetheless I know I end up consuming GMO products pretty much everyday. And I drink GMO beer without thinking twice about it, so there's that too.

While ultimately I would argue against it being implemented on a large scale I do think this is an interesting idea and I wouldn't be opposed to trying it.
 
I can see the appeal of a 'one-stop-shop' for DMT+harmala, with a yeast that makes ayahuasca instead of alcohol. Just put glucose & nutrients in a bucket and wait for a few days.

This rather overlooks the relationship with plants which I feel to be an important part of the brewing process, however. If people wanted pharmahuasca for their (literal) interplanetary space trips, I could understand. While we're still on planet Earth, isn't it a good idea to gain some understanding of the plants which sustain us in so many ways?

One of the main issues with GM, for me and many others, is the corporate control of lifeforms. Also on the pernicious side are factors such as the failure of GM crops in reducing pesticide usage due to the rapid development of herbicide resistance in 'weeds' - not to mention the fact that the self same company that produces these noxious herbicides also developed the herbicide resistant crops.

Then there's the habit of using antibiotic resistance genes as markers in GMOs, which strikes me as a very foolish idea. Ever heard of horizontal gene transfer? (And M*nsa*to are just plain evil...) As BecometheOther mentions, there are chronic health problems 'linked' to massive implementation of GM crops in the USA and beyond. The measurable glyphosate (a suspected carcinogen) residues in food are not unconnected with this.

Workers exposed to glyphosate were about twice as likely to get B cell lymphoma
Click to expand...

But of course that's a far cry from brewing your own GMoasca in a bucket... isn't it?
 
This wouldn't be the first time I've seen this suggested, and previously I was allover it. Now I'm not so sure. What's the point? Why screw with something nature provides so readily ?

I'd rather see a field of mimosa growing, oxygen being produced, carbon being absorbed and some beauty being brought to the world, than a vat of slime that produces more psychoactive drugs than you probably need.

It's too much easy, fast gratification. The test of someone who actually cares and takes necessary precaution to not make a fool of themselves is in the growing and/or learning and practice of extraction from plant material.

Alarm bells ring for many when folks talk about extracting a kilo of plant material at once, but with yeast you could just produce vats of the stuff. That's deserving of raising the same eyebrows, is it not ?
 
Personally, I do not see a problem with GMO per se. Mutations happen all the time in nature.

What I do have issues with, is when GMOs are used in a marketing scheme to push excessive use of certain pesticides. Or when it is applied as a tool by certain companies to acquire artificial monopolies.

In practice, I don't think GMO technology is a useful technique for the amateur. Obviously, creating GMOs is currently way out of scope for amateurs. But even if provided with a precultured strain of GMO yeast or bacteria, it is still a complex endeavor. A mimosa bush can be determined relatively easily to be the intended species, but how should an amateur determine if his strain of "slimy goo" is still the correct type of slimy goo?
 
Nathanial.Dread said:
Idea: using CRISPR/Cas-9 technology, take the enzymes required to biosynthesize DMT out of some plant that naturally does it, and express them in yeast, along with the same set of enzymes necessary for some MAOI compound.

Make sure you got high enough expression that both compounds present in large quantities (say .5-2% dry weight), and presumably you could, if the yeast is viable, grow it in vats, collect it once it's flocculated off, and it would be ready to go right then - it could be eaten 'raw' (as a yeasty goop), dried, or extracted.

So the question for The Nexus is:

Would you take GMO Ayahuasca?

Blessings
~ND
Click to expand...


Most definitely. Assuming I oversaw the isolation of the tryptamine.
 
Orion said:
This wouldn't be the first time I've seen this suggested, and previously I was allover it. Now I'm not so sure. What's the point? Why screw with something nature provides so readily ?

I'd rather see a field of mimosa growing, oxygen being produced, carbon being absorbed and some beauty being brought to the world, than a vat of slime that produces more psychoactive drugs than you probably need.

It's too much easy, fast gratification. The test of someone who actually cares and takes necessary precaution to not make a fool of themselves is in the growing and/or learning and practice of extraction from plant material.

Alarm bells ring for many when folks talk about extracting a kilo of plant material at once, but with yeast you could just produce vats of the stuff. That's deserving of raising the same eyebrows, is it not ?
Click to expand...

I agree with Orion. I don't think anything is inherently wrong with transgenics, it happens often in nature on its own accord. I am however weary of any technology that makes life easier. I think in the end it comes at a price, being complacent and dependent on said technology.
 
obli, GMOs are often regarded as evil and for good reason.

Too many reasons to list, but some of them are:

They are unhealthy and the modified genes inserted into food can live on in our bodies after we have digested the food.

Since genetically modified foods were introduced to our diets, the rate of chronic disease has nearly doubled in our country. That is a fact, they havenn't linked it scientifically to GMO's but that is what they think the main culprit is.

GMO crops contaminate other local crops, poisoning their dna, and then once the plants grow, monsanto sues them for using their genes! not made up there are several huge lawsuits going on right now about this. Monsanto wants to stamp out small farmers and organic food at all costs. They are straight up evil.

All the info claiming GMO is safe, is doctored info coming from the conglomorate corporations themselves, believing it is believing their propoganda. WHen independent scientists verify their claims, they often get contradictary results.

THe creation of gmo plants can have side effects we do not even yet know about, but in theory bad mutations could occur...
Click to expand...

Becometheother, these are pretty dramatic claims that, AFAIK, are COMPLETELY unfounded by science. Even your claim that they eliminate biodiversity is false. This effect stems from monocropping (which farmers are subsidized by the gov't for doing) and the excessive use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer.

Becometheother, could you please link us to some sources for your claims?

All of you GMO nay-sayers might find this here TRILLION-meal study interesting. GMO Trillion-meal study

It is industrialized agricultural practices that are killing the ecology, not GMOs. If you are so against GMOs, you probably shouldn't eat kale, because kale is a GMO.
 
As Walt Whitman put it:

“I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.”
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, some scientists – and most CEO's – now refuse to even consider that their guess can ever be wrong. Not only that, but any conflicting evidence which does arise, is routinely suppressed or destroyed. Anybody tries to blow a whistle, and...ahem!

Objective truth is found in inverse proportion to commercial imperative, in my experience to date. So simply claiming that "the science" does or does not support a given position is not quite as easy as it once was.

Skepticism is the true scientist's best friend, not unfounded certainty and emotive BS about feeding more mouths. Tackling the sheer number of mouths is the real issue at stake, but that's a whole other topic...

This link has nothing to do with GMO's, but it does highlight how science can be conscripted and deformed by malevolent actors, who ought to know better:

A six-month investigation finds that the revolving door between government and the chemical industry has led the EPA to rely on easily manipulated toxicology research carried out entirely on computers – and this ‘in silico’ science often trumps both biology and epidemiology when it comes to regulatory action, or lack of it. The result? Toxic substances remain in everyday products.
Click to expand...

www.globalresearch.ca

Triumph of "Digital Toxicology": Why the US won't Regulate Deadly Chemicals - Global Research

A six-month investigation finds that the revolving door between government and the chemical industry has led the EPA to rely on easily manipulated toxicology research carried out entirely on computers – and this ‘in silico’ science often trumps both biology and epidemiology when it comes to...
www.globalresearch.ca www.globalresearch.ca
 
GMO is a technology, it cant be good or bad.
Its a tool and how you use it is what matters.

Im sure like anything else we will learn how to use it properly in time.
 
See this article too, for an account of a more insidious problem affecting science:

A researcher’s track record is traditionally judged by the number of publications. Funding is completely dependent on this arbitrary output, which creates a requirement to produce any publication, no matter how incremental or limited the finding. The well-known ‘publish or perish’ rule for scientists creates many problems, but little has been more damaging to the future of science and humanity than what it has done to young researchers over the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

arstechnica.com

Is there a creativity deficit in science?

If so, the current funding system shares much of the blame.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
Back
Top Bottom