3 ms·
Its both cases of failing government oversight of these industries. Fukushima got worse and worse, because the company was basically doing and saying whatever t
by yaix 13y ago
Its both cases of failing government oversight of these industries. Fukushima got worse and worse, because the company was basically doing and saying whatever they wanted (and seemingly still is) with the government just repeating it.
Same goes for GMO. Its a good but potentially very dangerous technology. We should not simply allow it because a few billion USD in turnover and GDP growth are promised.
- Bluestrike2 13y agoNo, we should allow it because GMO represents the potential for increases in agricultural efficiency and total output that mean the difference between millions starving to death or not.
- te_chris 13y agoI'm not anti-GMO, but your argument is incredibly weak and completely ignores biodiversity and vendor lock in concerns (i.e Monsanto seeds requiring to be re-sown, thus repurchased after every harvest) that seem to be the main angle from most anti-GMO people I know. The problem is everyone is thinking about the short-term.
- coldtea 13y agoI call BS. We have enough yield to feed the planet already. The difference between millions starving to death or not is inequality and indifference. GMO's are mostly used to sell the same food to the same people that always had food and can pay for it, just with better profit margins. Not to mention patents, locking the seeds etc -- something 100 times worse than software patents.
- nl 13y agoWe have enough yield to feed the planet already. "We" in this case is the US (perhaps combined with the Ukraine, Australia & a few other large grain providers). But that means that much of the worlds population has to rely on food supplies grown elsewhere. Increasing drought resistance in grain crops could allow African countries to feed themselves, which could decrease political tensions over water supplies.