4 ms·
I've always been "pro GMO" in the sense that I think its immoral to artificially restrict our food supply and making food unnecessarily expensive. Plus the inno
by woodpanel 10y ago
I've always been "pro GMO" in the sense that I think its immoral to artificially restrict our food supply and making food unnecessarily expensive. Plus the innovation that can be spurred from the food sector into other areas won't be seen until a hotbed has been established. I also think Europe is losing out on opportunity with its Gealileo-like reflex on fundamentally new, groundbreaking science.
That being said, I was deeply disappointed to hear that our 'groundbreaking technology' amounts to stuff like "make plants pesticide resistant" > "dump more pesticide on plants" > "apply for patent". This is really disappointingly stupid.
Also it turns out that crop yields are almost not at all affected by genetic modification [1]
[1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/gm-crops-not-increasing-yields.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/gm-...
- jlj 10y agoIn addition to the unknown side effects of GMO's that might take us a few generations to learn about, the scarier thing for me is the risk of GMO's going into the wild and becoming an invasive species that wipes out native crops and habitats. By the time we know if GMO's are good for us and the environment or not, it may be too late to go back to conventional crops. Agree completely on the pesticides comment though. Biggest innovation in crop yield seems to be hydroponics and vertical growing. Fraction of the water use and don't need to worry about soil.
- makomk 10y agoOne of the biggest dirty secrets of GMO crops is that it just isn't that effective a technique compared to conventional breeding.