By your reasoning every product we produce would converge to a single super Twinkie of maximal profit, and we’d make nothing nutritious. Since this is clearly o

By your reasoning every product we produce would converge to a single super Twinkie of maximal profit, and we’d make nothing nutritious. Since this is clearly obviously false, being a straw man, there is no reason we’d not also engineer many varieties of food. You also keep repeating that somehow seed control is going to make things expensive, despite decades of it doing the exact opposite, hence vastly lower consumer expenditures. So, once you stop avoiding actual economics as demonstrated econometrically, your arguments fall apart. > Those sentences contradict each-other. No, they don’t. You think extremely black and white, missing important nuance. Certainly selective breeding could randomly in one generation create anything, but the odds are too low to make it practical, thus GMO, by increasing the odds, improves the expected outcome, which is what we care about. And certainly mutation could make our changes irrelevant in one generation, but we hope that it doesn’t. There’s no one size fits all rate of evolution that supports your simplistic claim that one has to outpace the other. We only engineer in the hopes that it doesn’t. If you really want everything explained this carefully so you don’t inject extreme positions I’ll do it. There’s no reason to continue if you’re more interested in repeating the same claims regardless of evidence. If you want to continue please cite some decent evidence to back your claims.