Greenpeace's Crimes Against Humanity

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm not really all that convinced by the usefulness of GMOs, they strike me as trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease.

I am. There is no such thing as non-GMO corn, for example. That grain crop is so heavily altered as to be unrecognizeable compared with the wild version.

We have always modified the genes of our crops by selective breeding and cultivation. The technology to pick and choose genes just allows us to do so faster and more efficiently.

What do you consider the disease in this case, because I'd really like to be on the same page before talking about symptom vs cure. Is it famine? Climate change? Capitalism?

[McAvoy]

I'm not really all that convinced by the usefulness of GMOs, they strike me as trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease.

Did you know that selective breeding of plants have been going on for thousands of years? That's GMOs.

Watermelon
Corn
Cabbage
Broccoli
Tomato
Rice
Potato
Wheat
Pepper (hot peppers)

The banana plant is a huge one. Also a big mistake since every single one is a clone of each other and therefore super vulnerable to diseases.

[ProfessorDetective]

I'm not really all that convinced by the usefulness of GMOs, they strike me as trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease.

Did you know that selective breeding of plants have been going on for thousands of years? That's GMOs.

Watermelon
Corn
Cabbage
Broccoli
Tomato
Rice
Potato
Wheat
Pepper (hot peppers)

The banana plant is a huge one. Also a big mistake since every single one is a clone of each other and therefore super vulnerable to diseases.

Yeah, but that's done by down-on-the-range farmers and the occasional monk. The moment they move to a lab and wear the coats, idiots assume it'll automatically turn into that Aqua Team bit with the corn.

[Riedquat]

It's rather disingenuous to equate the two - a gross over-simplification that can lead to very dubious conclusions.

Lumping togeter selective breeding and direct genetic modification and treating them as essentially doing the same thing just because the outcome is superficially similar (a different variety) is misleading and inaccurate.

[TGLS]

It's rather disingenuous to equate the two - a gross over-simplification that can lead to very dubious conclusions.

Lumping togeter selective breeding and direct genetic modification and treating them as essentially doing the same thing just because the outcome is superficially similar (a different variety) is misleading and inaccurate.

And speeding up the process is bad because...?

[Riedquat]

It's rather disingenuous to equate the two - a gross over-simplification that can lead to very dubious conclusions.

Lumping togeter selective breeding and direct genetic modification and treating them as essentially doing the same thing just because the outcome is superficially similar (a different variety) is misleading and inaccurate.

And speeding up the process is bad because...?

You assume it's merely speeding up the process because...?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

My food no MICROSCOPE!!

[TGLS]

It's rather disingenuous to equate the two - a gross over-simplification that can lead to very dubious conclusions.

Lumping togeter selective breeding and direct genetic modification and treating them as essentially doing the same thing just because the outcome is superficially similar (a different variety) is misleading and inaccurate.

And speeding up the process is bad because...?

You assume it's merely speeding up the process because...?

Because through HGT and mutation sooner or later the gene you seek to splice would be found naturally and then the specific genotype could be created through selective breeding. Much faster to take a pigmentation gene from Snapdragons and insert it into a Tomato plant to get your high anthocyanin Blue Tomatoes or Roundup Ready Soybeans.

But let's leave that aside. Genetically modified food is bad because __________. You fill in the blank and then we can have an argument.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The real issues surrounding gmos that have come to my attention tend to come off conditional on geographical distinction for lack of a better word. The push to sustain natural food development, along with active concerns about cross contamination that can go so far as to entail pervasive branding resulting in complicated legal matters.

[Riedquat]

Because through HGT and mutation sooner or later the gene you seek to splice would be found naturally and then the specific genotype could be created through selective breeding. Much faster to take a pigmentation gene from Snapdragons and insert it into a Tomato plant to get your high anthocyanin Blue Tomatoes or Roundup Ready Soybeans.

But let's leave that aside. Genetically modified food is bad because __________. You fill in the blank and then we can have an argument.

"Sooner or later it would be found naturally" - no, no guarantee of that. The assumption that GM is simply doing the same thing as selective breeding but with a bit more control is flawed.

Change without good reason is something I'll always reject and there's no persuasive case made for GM food. As I pointed out earlier it's trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease of famine, why developed countries haven't had a famine for a long time without GM crops. Farming methods, irrigation, population distribution, poltical stability, those are the sorts of issues that need tackling to deal with hunger. Crop yield due to the crops themselves is scratching at the surface.

There's a big problem with this day and age of thinking that more technology is the solution to every problem.

With anything new the very solid, convincing case needs to be made by its proponents. Trying to shift the onus on to having it unless there's a good reason against is getting things out by 180 degrees.

Would you be disturbed by the thought of doing the same with humans and genes from other species?