This thread could easily be in Natural Sciences, but GMO’s and now, GMA’s are more of a social issue than a scientific ethics question. nytimes.com/2010/06/26/busin … ?src=busln
As the world begins to face the disappearance of inexpensive foods (largely the cost of transport), is there a place for locally grown (inexpensive) GMO’s and GMA’s? Is there a way to bypass cultural bias or is deliberate starvation to be allowed as population increases continue to put pressure on dwindling food sources?
The techniques mentioned in this article will be applicable almost any place in the world in a few short years. Pro’s and con’s?
The only reason food shortages occurs is because they are made, deliberately. No one can argue we don’t have the technology to grow food worldwide without altering the genetics. The logistics of why that isn’t the case is conspiracy to some, and some sort of fluke coincidence to another.
Food shortages exist to push forward programs like the ones listed above. How would you like to have all of the world’s milk injected with BGH from Monsanto? That’s what codex outlines. Worldwide. Endorsement of these programs is endorsement of your own demise.
I would suggest reading something which will allow you to ascertain the meta-plot, instead of latching onto GMO’s as a cure because you watched a commercial and have the ability at least to recognize that yes, people are dying. We, as a society, suffer from a cultural shotgun to the face. Something more than a band-aid will be required. Especially not a band-aid given to you by the guy with the shotgun.
True, but can you explain why selective breeding is seen as positive, but gene manipulation isn’t? Granted, there are always unknown consequences of either methodology, but why the acceptance of one and fear of the other? Neither method is “natural” -ie- both require human intervention. What is the big deal?
One huge problem with current GM food production is with the obsolescent seeds. These seeds are driving farmers out of business and allowing huge corporations to take over farmland and skew the market.
Another problem is the way that the food is pushed onto certain groups of people. Let’s take corn, for example. Corn products are notably bad for humans when they represent a large part of the diet. If gm corn products are forced on poor people, they will not be able to live healthy lives.
Add to that the way that plant genes are manipulated to fend off aggressors. That adds another skewing factor to the food.
None of these three scenarios was a factor involved in or resulting from natural food modification or selective breeding… nor did the use of selective breeding force people into eating one type of food as opposed to a balanced healthy diet. Also, farmers were still able to use their seeds year after year without having to buy new ones each year, which happened to be the ones sold by huge, sociopathic gm companies like Monsanto and Dupont, conveniently driving the farmers out of business so that said Monsanto or Dupont could take over the farms.
Yes, but selective breeding can give us hybrids that produce sterile seed allowing the hybrid producing company to “corner” a market as well.
I’m not sure about this. Granted, a mono-diet isn’t healthy, but neither is starvation?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Plants that can be made resistant to pests and disease would seem to be beneficial in that the reduction of “chemical solutions” is reduced. GM crops can help the need for reliance on chemical pesticides.
Actually, producing hybrids through “natural” selective breeding can acheive the same results, it just takes longer. The big agri-corporations aren’t trying to take over farms, they are attempting to take over and monopolize farm production. There is no need to own the farm, just own the farmer…
The link that started this thread points out that the GMA salmon would only be sterile females, the theory is that they couldn’t mingle with wild stock - a necessary protection. That they forgot to mention that it allows them to have a monopoly of the seed stock was conveniently not discussed.
But none of this addresses the general public suspicion of GM food stuffs. Given that either natural selective breeding or GM production gives us the same results, what is driving the aversion to GM foods?
[
The problem with GM foods is basically control of the seeds. Farmers can’t afford to buy seeds every year, when formerly they had a natural and free supply. Farmers are literally being driven out of business and their lands and food production taken over by the big corporations. These same corporations also have the ability to control what food people get depending on where they live and what their economic status is.
As you say, even crummy GM corn is better than starving, but just barely. And the problem gets worse when you see how hunger can be manipulated for corporate purposes. A similar pattern is developing with water, by the way. The whole thing is very scary, in my view, particularly in light of global warming and patterns of flood and drought that corporations can take advantage of. I presume you are somewhat familiar with The Shock Doctrine. What a world we live in, eh…
What seems a likely scenario is that the multinationals will create conditions where governments will no longer support their monopolies. Eventually, despite all the “patents” and legal wrestling, food production will be too important to allow it to become a “profit center”. Governments will only survive to the extent that they can either repress (short time) or feed their citizens. There’s gonna be more than just a few wars over foods as the haves let the have nots starve.
The potable water issue just adds to the burden. The patient is sick and the prognosis doesn’t look very bright.
You might want to keep in mind that socialist governments exist solely to administer the wishes of their aristocracy (the “Big Business” board members). The citizenry are at best a temporarily necessary nuisance. Technology will soon repair that nuisance (is already well on its way).
I’m not sure I follow. Farmers are under no obligation to sell their land, or buy the GM seeds - which are rightly controlled as property by the firms that developed them in the first place. However, a quick googling around reveals that farmers that can afford to - are in fact buying the seeds. I haven’t done the research - but from what I recall about a paper I wrote 10 years ago, GM seeds produce better yields, in a greater variety of climates, with less resources… so perhaps, from an economic standpoint, the farmer is better off with less GM seeds than an unlimited supply of traditional seeds?
Shock Doctrine - that’s Naomi Klein (sp?) isn’t it? In any event, water scarcity is only a concern for those that lack imagination, and have no respect for history. I live on a tropical island - with all the fresh water we need - at prices that might be, on average, 10-15% higher than what they were in Ontario, Canada - one of the richest fresh water locations on the planet. If it’s possible here - given our current technology - its most certainly not going to be a problem down the road.
What you describe is only likely if corporations are first broken up or dissolved. If that were to happen at some point in time, it might be too late to save extinct species or renewable seeds.
The more likely scenario, and it’s pretty ugly, is that of adaptation to a very toxic and contaminated world. I presume that the process of evolution will continue apace for whatever survives.
No, GMO is a huge money interest, and science neglect negative results.
About 12 years ago there was a scientist who found that GMO potatoes was cancerous, he got fired and the findings got hushed down.
Capitalism is at times a very dirty buisness, usually it’s just a dirty buisness.
