In promoting genetically modified food via all manner of lobbying, purchasing of congressmen, and overt scientific propaganda (with smear campaigns against such persons as yours truly), the big agricultural companies foolishly believed that all they needed was to win the majority. No, you idiots. As I said, your snap “scientific” judgment is too naive in these type of decisions. Consider that transgenic-GMO eaters will eat nonGMOs, but not the reverse. So it may suffice to have a tiny, say no more than five percent of evenly spatially distributed population of non-genetically modified eaters for the entire population to have to eat non-GMO food. How? Say you have a corporate event, a wedding, or a lavish party to celebrate the fall of the Saudi Arabian regime, the bankruptcy of the rent-seeking investment bank Goldman Sachs, or the public reviling of Ray Kotcher, chairman of Ketchum the public relation firm that smears scientists and scientific whistleblowers on behalf of big corporations. Do you need to send a questionnaire asking people if they eat or don’t eat transgenic GMOs and reserve special meals accordingly? No. You just select everything non-GMO, provided the price difference is not consequential. And the price difference appears to be small enough to be negligible as (perishable) food costs in America are largely, about up to eighty or ninety percent, determined by distribution and storage, not the cost at the agricultural level. And as organic food (and designations such as “natural”) is in higher demand, from the minority rule, distribution costs decrease and the minority rule ends up accelerating in its effect.
There is the intellectual, saying, “you fools! Why don’t you feel the happiness my theories tell you that you should! Why, you must be stupid!” And over there is the human heart, a little bit broken, full of despair and fear and worry, saying, “I am living a life of great uncertainty and insecurity and worry. I am never sure if I will be able to take care of myself or the people I love, and nothing I do seems to ever make a difference — not the degrees I have gotten, or the jobs I get, or the meagre amounts of money I save. My discontents grow ever larger, even though, it’s true, I have more material things than my grandfather. But he had things I didn’t, which are worth far more: security, safety, optimism, trust, hope, belonging, belief in myself and the future and my society.”
Ah, you see? Now you are thinking like a little intellectual, too. Bzzt. It’s the wrong question entirely. A better one is: “can we reduce human life to a correlation between, well, anything and a single dependent variable about pleasure?” The purpose of life, at least in a small way, is a sense of fulfillment, realization, self-discovery, but that is bigger than pleasure, isn’t it? Yet, economistic logic flips all this on its head and demands that having had more stuff, we must feel this reductive, simplistic thing called “happiness”, or else we are stupid. That is why intellectuals are left powerless to understand why people feel the way they do, and end up only insulting them for not feeling the way their broken theories tell them they should.