Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry
theupwing.com
theupwing.com
We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likely need less of Monsanto et al meddling in the farming industry.
I also find there's an opposite view of organic crops – there's this glorified notion that "organic" crops are better, but they're only better along very specific axes, namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated). In reality, organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale, in many ways making them worse for the environment than (responsible) pesticide usage.
Everyone just needs to take into account their externalities. Right now industry and (some) eco campaigners don't.
That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce. Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place.
> namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated)
There is also overfertilization, which puts nitrates into ground and ultimately drinking water, and the over-use of herbicide, which massively strains local ecosystems to their collapse. The farmer revolts in Europe over the last 1-2 years have shown how politically difficult any kind of regulation in this area is. The EU is now backing down. It seems to be very difficult to find a middle ground in the "excessive vs. organic" spectrum.
Yes, but if food can become X% more abundant do to increased yield or survivability in previously unsurvivable climates, distribution and costs can become that much less of an issue.
The issue I refer to as "conventional organic" involves attempting to farm like a conventional farm but without using pesticides. This approach is naturally problematic. However, there are alternative farming methods that can significantly boost productivity while also valuing biodiversity. For instance, permaculture is an excellent option for small farms in developing countries, and agroforestry enhances climate resilience. And crop mixing, such as planting wheat with broad beans, can increase yields by 16%. This method also improves soil fertility by fixing nitrogen and reduces the risk of pest infestations and diseases.
You could say the same thing about grass grazing cows and free range chickens.
But anyone who’s had fresh home grown eggs, milk, or a 1/4 cow out in the country knows how much of a difference there is.
Just because something is maximally efficient, doesn’t mean it’s healthier. Just like Coca Cola isn’t healthier than Kefir.
The reality is that free range animals take up an incredible amount of resources for a small percentage of the population who can afford such luxury.
But you can’t produce as much as Coca Cola and non-organic.
Which is why I’m specifically refuting
> organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale
Because it’s still true that no matter how much scale your Kefir has, those properties apply to it more than Coke.
So let’s not talk about purely that you can make more non-organic, but about the tradeoff and what get from organic when you’re not making quite as much.
Not really, for refence I'm in a rural grain growing area with farm size averaging 4500 hectares.
Grain yields can be increased by many means, as they are, along with breeding for changing climate conditions, which they are (many thousands of ANOVA plots are grown about the region here every year) but the overwhelming practical attraction of GMO crops is glyphosate resistance .. this allows the application of weedkiller during seeding times in sufficient amounts to kill all plants save the crop.
Killing every plant across hundreds of thousands of hectares (with the exception of a very few desired by humans as food for humans) isn't exactly widely considered to be an environmental plus.
Near monoculture has knock on effects on the diversity of animal life, general environmental robustness, etc.
On the contrary. World hunger has declined dramatically ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution, due almost entirely to large-scale mechanized agriculture and modern plant breeding.
It did take a jump in the last few years, but that was due to the pandemic, not a failure of agriculture.
Pretty much the only thing that can produce famine nowadays is war or a completely fucked-up government (sometimes war and a completely fucked-up government). Again, that's not the fault of modern agriculture.
We aren't going to go back to a world where guys with shovels and buckets of manure produce all the food. For one, they couldn't possibly produce enough food for the current population. For another, the "guy with shovel and bucket of manure" model was dependent on the guys being some type of unfree labor (serfs or outright slaves).
I like living in a world where 90% of the human race isn't digging turnips by hand, with an overseer standing nearby with a whip.
Instead we have a situation where people feel compelled to lobby governments to place more stringent regulations on the industry simply because they are left with no meaningful choice in what they buy. Worse yet, it breeds suspicion not only of corporate motivation but of product safety. The latter of which is of greater concern over the long term viability of GMOs.
I’d be interested to hear examples of large-scale industry players voluntarily accepting the costs of their externalities to any meaningful degree (i.e. more than just-enough-to-make-a-good-PR-campaign). My belief is that in the absence of regulation, the survival advantages conferred by socializing costs and privatizing losses are sufficient to eliminate larger conscientious (or so-called “socially responsible”) organizations.
Arsenic is organic.
lack of synthetic pesticides, you can use as much organic pesticides as you want.
“Consumption of organically produced food reduces pesticide exposure and is linked to a variety of health benefits, according to multiple studies, especially according to a large study from France.
Clinical trials continue to show that people who switch from non-organic to organic foods see a rapid and dramatic reduction in their urinary pesticide concentrations, a marker of pesticide exposure.
Other studies have linked higher consumption of organic foods to lower urinary pesticide levels, improved health outcomes, including reductions in maternal obesity and pregnancy-associated preeclampsia risks, lower BMI and reduced risk of Type 2 diabetes.”
That's fine if you're privileged enough to afford the organic stuff. Not so much if you're a poor person in need of raw calories.
And pesticides like Roundup have been linked to neurological problems like Parkinson.
If you’d want to save the poor, you’d teach them about greenhouses and irrigation and soil enrichment, which are actually the biggest issues in these poor countries
Did you know they don’t need a patent on the crop? They can file patents on variations of the genes in question, meaning even other variations can be protected under patent laws.
I guess it would be more honest to say I think there are other, more pressing matters in agriculture than GMOs, and that I have serious problems with patents on basic needs like medicine and food sources.
But the topic was about GMOs, so I phrased my response in this context. Do with it as you like.
A weed|plant-killer (not a pesticide) that grain crops are modified to be resistant to.
Here we are. The article criticizes environmentalists against pesticides but never addresses environmental concerns. Convince me that "GMOs making pesticides resistant bad because most pesticides bad, because it harms the environment of which people are part" is false first.
What keeps the poor hungry is keeping the poor poor. The solution to this political choice is not a technical answer.
seeing the side-by-side comparisons of how much wheat has increased in yield from radiation-gardening made me realize that all we're really doing is speeding evolution / domestication using technology, and this was over 50 years ago! https://youtu.be/LPZqVSu_fu4?t=549
the most democratizing step would probably be distributing CRISPR kits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing) to farmers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening was close but I guess we can't have errant atoms running amok ("The Atomic Gardening Society utilized an early form of crowd-sourcing, in which members received irradiated seeds, planted them in their gardens, and sent reports back to Howorth detailing the results.")
It is not that we can not grow enough food for humans. It is that we feed all the food to unethically treated animals in large warehouses, only to dig them down when the meat is unprofitable (looking at you, Australia).
My bet is that we increase agriculture free land, and utilize what we grow much better.
The overwhelming majority of GMO crops are modified to allow the increased use of "round up" type pesticides. More pesticides = not good.
Examples of other modifications include "golden rice".
It is sad that all of this gets rolled into one thing, since it's not. And I was not in favor of the Greenpeace campaigning to prohibit golden rice propgation.
But using this greenpeace mistake as an argument for all GMO crops is also a mistake.
The really sad thing is that the human primate is so bound to binary logic that actual good decisions are almost impossible to reach...
https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation
>More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception.
If we stop that, we free up a lot of calories for human consumption. I'd say the total amount of pure grass fed animals would be way lower, which would be better for the environment of course, and meat would be much more expensive. Actually, I like that. Good idea!
But yes, distribution is the real problem
I don't. I understand that some people like the taste of meat and they don't want to miss out on that, but the animal and ecosystem exploitation have unfortunately serious consequences that we can't ignore. If we can create alternative products that taste just like meat (or maybe even better), then this would be beneficial to everyone.
This particular piece is hot garbage, and the entire operation has many hallmarks of astroturf.
If you've been around wetlands in the Midwest, switchgrass is the most prolific plant. You have to fight it to plant anything. The cultivar is a few percentage points better, but don't mistake it being better for anything other than marketing for the seed company.
You can't have something that just grows free and wild and is easy to propogate and to harvest with old square balers. You can't make biomass digestors palletized for home or community use to reduce our reliance on propane. No, you gotta make money from investor based corporate ag on a slightly different angle, mostly to grift clueless government green energy mandates.
I don't believe for a second modern agriculture companies give a fuck about the poor.
Having more humans on the planet is not the solution to climate change. And science isn't going to save our ass from it.
Sustainable agriculture is not about monoculture farming GMO crops while the rest of the environment gets obliterated by the practice.
Utterly stupid.