4 ms·

"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies sh

"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies should be the top PR priority of science.

rdl 12y ago
Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. (Borlaug was probably one of the top 10 people of the 20th Century) GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full) There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.
- bernawil 12y ago
  Third world countries are also mechanized. All of South America grows soybeans. It's Round Up all over. I'm from Argentina and can assure you that since early 00's soybean export taxes have paid at least one-third of the gov. budget.
  - brianbreslin 12y ago
    Argentina is running into issues with land going fallow now from too much Soy, and not enough crop rotation last I heard. Or is that not correct?
    - bernawil 12y ago
      I think this is true for marginal zones (low quality soil) where there shouldn't be soy but that's the only crop that will make a profit. Part of the problem is the insane taxation. With the costs of growing other crops I guess it's not that bad, it's not good soil anyway. The good zones are doing OK. Not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more. Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions. As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.
  - wprl 12y ago
    As GMO tech progresses, we are seeing strange side effects like interference with the monarch butterfly and bees, soil depletion, a drive for deeper genetic modification as weeds and insects adapt to old versions, a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood, just to name a few problems. Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty. I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock." I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!
    - wprl 12y ago
      It's always nice when people down vote you instead of vocalizing their disagreement.
    - chr1 12y ago
      The problem is that indigenous populations are sustainable only while they are very sparse. There is no way current 7 bln people could live on earth without GMO tech progress.
    - riffraff 12y ago
      the fact that the rich world did and keeps doing horrible things to the poor world is a given. But isn't there an issue with considering the indigenous population sustainable? What I mean is, aren't many countries on a "sustainable" agriculture consumption only in the sense that malnutrition is the norm?
gcb0 12y ago
most of the starvation in the world is because someone wants more profits along the way.

"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies should be the top PR priority of science.

rdl 12y ago

Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. (Borlaug was probably one of the top 10 people of the 20th Century) GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full) There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.

bernawil 12y ago
Third world countries are also mechanized. All of South America grows soybeans. It's Round Up all over. I'm from Argentina and can assure you that since early 00's soybean export taxes have paid at least one-third of the gov. budget.
- brianbreslin 12y ago
  Argentina is running into issues with land going fallow now from too much Soy, and not enough crop rotation last I heard. Or is that not correct?
  - bernawil 12y ago
    I think this is true for marginal zones (low quality soil) where there shouldn't be soy but that's the only crop that will make a profit. Part of the problem is the insane taxation. With the costs of growing other crops I guess it's not that bad, it's not good soil anyway. The good zones are doing OK. Not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt.
wyager 12y ago
>Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more. Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions. As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.
- wprl 12y ago
  As GMO tech progresses, we are seeing strange side effects like interference with the monarch butterfly and bees, soil depletion, a drive for deeper genetic modification as weeds and insects adapt to old versions, a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood, just to name a few problems. Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty. I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock." I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!
  - wprl 12y ago
    It's always nice when people down vote you instead of vocalizing their disagreement.
  - chr1 12y ago
    The problem is that indigenous populations are sustainable only while they are very sparse. There is no way current 7 bln people could live on earth without GMO tech progress.
  - riffraff 12y ago
    the fact that the rich world did and keeps doing horrible things to the poor world is a given. But isn't there an issue with considering the indigenous population sustainable? What I mean is, aren't many countries on a "sustainable" agriculture consumption only in the sense that malnutrition is the norm?

gcb0 12y ago

most of the starvation in the world is because someone wants more profits along the way.