"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies should be the top PR priority of science.
GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full)
There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.
Not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt.
The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more.
Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions.
As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.
Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock."
I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!
But isn't there an issue with considering the indigenous population sustainable?
What I mean is, aren't many countries on a "sustainable" agriculture consumption only in the sense that malnutrition is the norm?
Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs
> a drive for deeper genetic modification
So? That just means it's working.
> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood
This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.
> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.
> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture
You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."