> Since this is clearly obviously false, being a straw man, there is no reason we’d not also engineer many varieties of food. And yet tomatoes are getting more

> Since this is clearly obviously false, being a straw man, there is no reason we’d not also engineer many varieties of food. And yet tomatoes are getting more and more tasteless. > You also keep repeating that somehow seed control is going to make things expensive Nowhere in my posts did I claim that - the terms "seed control" or "expensive" aren't even in my posts. I claimed that the requirement to use GMO seeds to remain economically viable will concentrate the control over the food supply into a handful of corporations. If you take the smallest glance at agribusiness, you'll see consolidation is exactly what's already happening, and GMO will make it worse. > 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. So.. genetic engineering is vastly faster than natural or artificial selection? I.e. my original claim? Oh, sorry, I forgot to add the important nuance of on average.