3 ms·
this purposefully blurs the distinction between pairing natural breeding versus invasive engineering.. often repeated by people in favor of invasive engineering
by mistrial9 2y ago
this purposefully blurs the distinction between pairing natural breeding versus invasive engineering.. often repeated by people in favor of invasive engineering
- spacecadet 2y agoWhat an assumption. We're just having a fun conversation.
- cogman10 2y agoBecause "invasive engineering" is just systematized "natural breeding". People that don't understand this think that the production of GMO crops is done by scientists gene splicing scary chemicals into food products. What is actually done is scientist get a genetic profile of crops, look for genes in crops that behave in a way they like, and bread crops with those genes. Exactly what "natural breeding" does, except for maybe the fact that it can be far more targeted with the genetic information. There is a downside to this, it often results in highly homogeneous genetics in plants. However, that's a problem we already have with "natural" processes (see: bananas and most citrus fruits).
- mypalmike 2y agoYou are describing selective breeding. GMO is different. It involves the laboratory isolation of genes, and techniques to introduce said genes into an organism such that its DNA is altered. These technique do include gene splicing. Golden rice is one well known example. It is a GMO plant which has been modified with genes taken from daffodils and a bacteria called erwinium uredovora. It's not just breeding existing species for good qualities.
- aegypti 2y agoYes this is why eg the French bombard seeds with extraordinary amounts of radiation to get desired sets of random mutations, it’s much more natural and less invasive.