Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
I'm not sure these questions are any more relevant than "if we spray this plant with pesticides, what are the long-term effects?" If I'm not using as much toxin to achieve the same effect, because the plant itself is producing it in a targeted fashion instead of it being sprayed everywhere, willy-nilly, then you have to look at the possible drawbacks in the light of the certain benefits to the way things are already being done.
It's like the nuclear power protests back in the 60s and 70s - there was this huge focus on radioactive waste, and on the health dangers of radiation getting in the water, and the risk of meltdown, and so on. So thousands of coal plants went on spewing all kinds of pollution - including radioactive coal smoke - into the air and water in amounts exceeding by several orders of magnitude what the equivalent power generation in nuclear would have caused.
The choice was never in a moral vacuum where nuclear could be defeated by the forces of righteousness, and the Earth saved, but rather a choice between different imperfect solutions to the need for electrical power to run civilization.
It's a similar situation with GMO, yes, there may be dangers, but we are *already* facing similar or worse dangers with the way food is produced now. Truly staggering amounts of pesticides and herbicides are being applied, right now, with the commensurate poisoning of the environment. People are dying of starvation, right now. If GMO tech can alleviate these problems, is it sensible to ban it because of the mere potential of problems in the future, or does it make more sense to allow it, and continually seek to understand and improve it?
|
#1 ) I agree mostly with the 'best of two evils' scenario. Pesticide is a huge business, and in the last couple of years there has been a push to prove the effectiveness of pesticides in the field, and not in a laboratory setting, that was coming up with some interesting results, and was a topic being pushed by farmers, as they did not want to pay for a product that wasn't having the intended effect. The focus has been very subtlety and successfully moved into the GMO argument, instead.
#2 ) I see what you are saying about the culture of fear surrounding the nuclear power issue in the 60s. It was also a cult of misinformation on the part of the existing infrastructure, and a time where people were very apt to believe what the government told them. The heart of the cold war. Now it's more of a 'fear against fear' scenario, where both sides are ignoring the positives of the opponents positions entirely. Nobody seems to want the reasonable middle ground, that was eventually found in the nuclear example.
#3 ) I think that your last point is the only one that I would really disagree with. I can say with almost 100% certainty that if a blanket pardon is given to GMOs, the research to 'continually seek to understand and improve it' will come to a screeching halt. The only research at that point would be how to make them cheaper to produce, not how to make them safer. Safety would become reactionary.
You bring up some good points, but the one thing that stands in the way of finding a solution that works for both sides is that neither side is willing to discuss it. And if the GMO side wins, then all negotiation ends. Monsanto has paved the way in this regard, and that is why they are so hated.