4 ms·

Seriously. At this point it's either we use the biotechnology that many scientists have made their life's work, or millions of people starve.

by biohax2015 12y ago

Pxtl 12y ago
The differences in yield between fully modern farming techniques and modern organic farming is not that massive. It's substantial, I'll grant you - something like 13-25% difference. And that's with the fully bevy of certified organic practices - non-fossil-fuel soils, natural pesticides, etc. How much incremental improvement in yield do you actually think comes from the GMO side of things? The primary difference seems to be in manpower - Organic practices require far more manpower... but the world isn't short of manpower. There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. Norman Borlaug's green revolution would have happened with or without GMOs. My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture.
- sp332 12y ago
  There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. That's true now, but it won't be true when we add another billion or so people. That's only 15 years from now!
- sampo 12y ago
  > Norman Borlaug's green revolution Actually, in Norman Borlaugh's time, also his plant breeding methods (crossbreeding etc.) and the resulting crop cultivars were considered "unnatural" by some [1]. Also, when the potato was brought to Europe centuries ago, people were first very suspicious: "Even peasants refused to eat from a plant that produced ugly, misshapen tubers and that had come from a heathen civilization. Some felt that the potato plant's resemblance to plants in the nightshade family hinted that it was the creation of witches or devils." [2] [1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/18/he-saved-a-billion-lives/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/18/he-saved-a-b... [2] http://www.history-magazine.com/potato.html http://www.history-magazine.com/potato.html
- gusfoo 12y ago
  > My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture. You clearly know nothing at all about GMOs, because if you did you'd be cheering on the fact that GMOs use less pesticide and herbicide than organic crops do, and the ones used are less toxic than the organic equivalents. And monocultures have nothing to do with GMOs. Why would you spend time typing up such nonsense?
- Blahah 12y ago
  > There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. Norman Borlaug's green revolution would have happened with or without GMOs. Norman Borlaug's green revolution did happen without GMOs - it was all about breeding (e.g for shorter stems) and intensification of nutrient inputs. While food distribution is a major problem, it's simply not true that food supply is not also a problem. It is entirely unfeasible for all the food in the world to be efficiently distributed to everyone who needs food from the places it is currently grown in the time we have available before peak population. Food supply is a limiting factor. Enabling people to grow more food close to where they live will save lives. This is why we (plant geneticists) continue trying to raise yields. Try telling a starving family in (Indonesia|Tanzania|Bangladesh) that the problem isn't their pathetic rice crop yield, it's that Americans are throwing away cheeseburgers. We can feed a lot of those people with better agricultural technology. > My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture. GMOs don't enable any of those things. Monoculture is a route to efficient food production - it was around long before GMOs. We have it because it was the path of least resistance to massive scale food production. Total amount of pesticides might be increased in some cases with GMOs (though in many it is reduced), but the important thing is that current GMOs enable us to use much, much less harmful pesticides. Glyphosate is probably the safest herbicide the world has ever seen. Some of the alternatives are just terrifyingly harmful. IP law is certainly used by some seed companies, but I'd argue it's generally not abused to anywhere near the level it is by tech companies. If you read the court documents from Monsanto cases they are almost always reasonable and subsequently misrepresented by activists.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  "13-25% difference." Where do you get those numbers from? Anecdotally in my experience, organic crop yields are well under half of those from conventional crops. Often organic crops are left in the field to rot because there's so little there that it'd cost more to harvest the field than could be gained selling the crop. In our area, organic cropland is typically left fallow 1 year in 3 to control weeds, so there's an automatic 33% yield loss before any other factors.

Seriously. At this point it's either we use the biotechnology that many scientists have made their life's work, or millions of people starve.

Pxtl 12y ago

The differences in yield between fully modern farming techniques and modern organic farming is not that massive. It's substantial, I'll grant you - something like 13-25% difference. And that's with the fully bevy of certified organic practices - non-fossil-fuel soils, natural pesticides, etc. How much incremental improvement in yield do you actually think comes from the GMO side of things? The primary difference seems to be in manpower - Organic practices require far more manpower... but the world isn't short of manpower. There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. Norman Borlaug's green revolution would have happened with or without GMOs. My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture.

sp332 12y ago
There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. That's true now, but it won't be true when we add another billion or so people. That's only 15 years from now!
sampo 12y ago
> Norman Borlaug's green revolution Actually, in Norman Borlaugh's time, also his plant breeding methods (crossbreeding etc.) and the resulting crop cultivars were considered "unnatural" by some [1]. Also, when the potato was brought to Europe centuries ago, people were first very suspicious: "Even peasants refused to eat from a plant that produced ugly, misshapen tubers and that had come from a heathen civilization. Some felt that the potato plant's resemblance to plants in the nightshade family hinted that it was the creation of witches or devils." [2] [1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/18/he-saved-a-billion-lives/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/18/he-saved-a-b... [2] http://www.history-magazine.com/potato.html http://www.history-magazine.com/potato.html
gusfoo 12y ago
> My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture. You clearly know nothing at all about GMOs, because if you did you'd be cheering on the fact that GMOs use less pesticide and herbicide than organic crops do, and the ones used are less toxic than the organic equivalents. And monocultures have nothing to do with GMOs. Why would you spend time typing up such nonsense?
Blahah 12y ago
> There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. Norman Borlaug's green revolution would have happened with or without GMOs. Norman Borlaug's green revolution did happen without GMOs - it was all about breeding (e.g for shorter stems) and intensification of nutrient inputs. While food distribution is a major problem, it's simply not true that food supply is not also a problem. It is entirely unfeasible for all the food in the world to be efficiently distributed to everyone who needs food from the places it is currently grown in the time we have available before peak population. Food supply is a limiting factor. Enabling people to grow more food close to where they live will save lives. This is why we (plant geneticists) continue trying to raise yields. Try telling a starving family in (Indonesia|Tanzania|Bangladesh) that the problem isn't their pathetic rice crop yield, it's that Americans are throwing away cheeseburgers. We can feed a lot of those people with better agricultural technology. > My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture. GMOs don't enable any of those things. Monoculture is a route to efficient food production - it was around long before GMOs. We have it because it was the path of least resistance to massive scale food production. Total amount of pesticides might be increased in some cases with GMOs (though in many it is reduced), but the important thing is that current GMOs enable us to use much, much less harmful pesticides. Glyphosate is probably the safest herbicide the world has ever seen. Some of the alternatives are just terrifyingly harmful. IP law is certainly used by some seed companies, but I'd argue it's generally not abused to anywhere near the level it is by tech companies. If you read the court documents from Monsanto cases they are almost always reasonable and subsequently misrepresented by activists.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
"13-25% difference." Where do you get those numbers from? Anecdotally in my experience, organic crop yields are well under half of those from conventional crops. Often organic crops are left in the field to rot because there's so little there that it'd cost more to harvest the field than could be gained selling the crop. In our area, organic cropland is typically left fallow 1 year in 3 to control weeds, so there's an automatic 33% yield loss before any other factors.