5 ms·

This would be the situation, if the anti-GM crowd was a largely rational one. You would think that "this GM crop will allow us to feed millions of otherwise st

This would be the situation, if the anti-GM crowd was a largely rational one. You would think that "this GM crop will allow us to feed millions of otherwise starving children" would be a good enough argument for most people.

raganwald 16y ago
When you hear the words, "Think of the children," do you expect a rational discussion to follow? I'll do my best. Is "GM Bananas or starving children" a false dichotomy? If the world had no bananas, couldn't we use the plantations to grow something else?
- roc 16y ago
  The idea that science itself can provide a further answer to "how do we feed starving children" is false in and of itself. There's no shortage of food or food-bearing land in the world today. The remaining problems are purely political problems of distribution and corruption and economic problems of perverted incentives (food aid crowding out regional and local farming).
notahacker 16y ago
I'm not a blanket opponent of GM, but beyond the silly "Frankenstein food" rhetoric there's a real argument about the limitations in our knowledge of the potential side effects; particularly where unlike cross-bred bananas, plants are being "enhanced" with genes purposefully to make them toxic to certain species. We're not really in a position where we can confidently state that a gene will always behave in the same way when introduced to an alien species and left over a few generations, or that a particular "harmless to humans" protein will continue to be harmless to humans when consumed in higher volumes as part of a staple foodstuff. Testing ameliorates that risk but doesn't remove it altogether. Obviously similar arguments apply to our lack of real knowledge of the side-effects of pharmaceuticals and vaccination programs even after substantial testing, but there's an argument that the rewards for developing cures for disease are worth risking the side effects in a way that increased crop yields aren't. Moreover drugs tend to directly affect the individuals taking them, whereas 'enhanced' crops and their non-sterile wind-blown pollen affect an entire ecosystem. Then again the alternatives seem to be less-than-risk-free pesticides anyway...
- anamax 16y ago
  > particularly where unlike cross-bred bananas, plants are being "enhanced" with genes purposefully to make them toxic to certain species. Folks cross-breed, look for, and induce mutants (via radiation and other means) for exactly the same purposes as they use gene-splicing. It would take longer to get round-up resist corn via cross-breeding, but folks would be trying to do it if they didn't have gene techniques.
Vivtek 16y ago
How about "The Amish really like GM crops"? And they do.

raganwald 16y ago

When you hear the words, "Think of the children," do you expect a rational discussion to follow? I'll do my best. Is "GM Bananas or starving children" a false dichotomy? If the world had no bananas, couldn't we use the plantations to grow something else?

roc 16y ago
The idea that science itself can provide a further answer to "how do we feed starving children" is false in and of itself. There's no shortage of food or food-bearing land in the world today. The remaining problems are purely political problems of distribution and corruption and economic problems of perverted incentives (food aid crowding out regional and local farming).

notahacker 16y ago

I'm not a blanket opponent of GM, but beyond the silly "Frankenstein food" rhetoric there's a real argument about the limitations in our knowledge of the potential side effects; particularly where unlike cross-bred bananas, plants are being "enhanced" with genes purposefully to make them toxic to certain species. We're not really in a position where we can confidently state that a gene will always behave in the same way when introduced to an alien species and left over a few generations, or that a particular "harmless to humans" protein will continue to be harmless to humans when consumed in higher volumes as part of a staple foodstuff. Testing ameliorates that risk but doesn't remove it altogether. Obviously similar arguments apply to our lack of real knowledge of the side-effects of pharmaceuticals and vaccination programs even after substantial testing, but there's an argument that the rewards for developing cures for disease are worth risking the side effects in a way that increased crop yields aren't. Moreover drugs tend to directly affect the individuals taking them, whereas 'enhanced' crops and their non-sterile wind-blown pollen affect an entire ecosystem. Then again the alternatives seem to be less-than-risk-free pesticides anyway...

anamax 16y ago
> particularly where unlike cross-bred bananas, plants are being "enhanced" with genes purposefully to make them toxic to certain species. Folks cross-breed, look for, and induce mutants (via radiation and other means) for exactly the same purposes as they use gene-splicing. It would take longer to get round-up resist corn via cross-breeding, but folks would be trying to do it if they didn't have gene techniques.

Vivtek 16y ago

How about "The Amish really like GM crops"? And they do.