Just wanting to get peoples thoughts on the subject
deleted by creator
Seems like a large part of why industrialisation of farming took place was to make the process of agriculture more capital intensive and increase profits. Industrialisation of farming has had awful effects on the environment but another effect is that it displaces farmers who are then forced to move into cities, therefore adding to the reserve army of labour and reducing wages, which is again good for capital owners. GMO has played a part in this too, with the added fuckery of IP laws in something as fundamental as agriculture. This is the case in India at least.
Lots of these ex-farmers would be better off if they owned land and grew food for their own communities or for the market rather than making useless commodities.
deleted by creator
I don’t object to it in general, but my understanding is that in practice most GMOs are designed for pest/pesticide resistance, which can select more aggressive pests, and that’s not good for plant diversity. There are also some pretty awful issues with patents/copyrights, and problems with the specific pesticides many of the GMOs are intended to promote. Good GMOs are definitely possible, but when the majority of GMOs are under control of evil corporations like Bayer-Monsanto I cannot consider myself pro-GMO.
I think they’re fantastic for the reasons others have mentioned already. They can also be used to tackle important issues relating to food & nutrition (see golden rice).
My only concern is that companies sometimes “copyright” a GMO and then sue farms who are growing it without having purchased it (e.g. when seeds blow across from a nearby farm). It’s been a while since I heard about that though; I’m not sure if it’s still an issue.
As someone who works out of an institute that focuses on genetic techniques (though not actually being in that field myself) and having a background in applied genetics I see the benefits and safety self evident: Creating crops that are pest resistant and do not require chemical agents for pest control will help restore insect numbers. And proving a GM organism is safe is a rigorous and slow process.
However, I don’t have a good source on either. But I’m willing to find one if there is lively discussion (though most people wont be able to read the sources without a university connection as they’re rarely open access)
And GMO crops can mean less land used to produce the same amount of food, leaving land that would have been fields as wilderness instead.
As goes with veganism. More land back to the environment
deleted by creator
I trust academia more than films
deleted by creator
Sure monoculture is not a good idea, but it doesn’t really mean GMO though. It’s not the same thing.
From the first link. Mon$@nt0 is evil, no question. All tools can be misused. From my understandining, over the last five years there’s been solid pushback and they’re becoming less powerful in the realm of GM
Nit sure what the second link is about. Generally docos are no longer accurate after 15 years
deleted by creator
I actually don’t know that much about that. I am against centralization, not against GMO itself. I think many anti-GMO arguments are actually anti-monoculture arguments (except the ones about health).
I don’t know if GMO would be useful for local-scale agriculture. Maybe you can help me on that one?
