platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Quite. You could say the same about COVID vaccines. In fact, people do.
Luckily we haven't banned vaccine research in humans.
Luckily we haven't banned vaccine research in humans.
If you live in a cave you always and continually have the right and ability to leave the cave. If somebody else releases GM organisms (animal, vegetable, fungal, insect, bacterial, whatever) into the environment and they turn out to be resilient and harmful, then you are stuck with them. The only people likely to do that are governments and mega-corporations. They are inherently not to be trusted and think mainly in the short term for their own advantage.Surely the response to this shouldn't be not to explore it?
If that were the generally the case we'd still be living in caves.
The basic point is that we don't need GM. It gives power and control to the few. It brings with it many potential risks. So why the urgency?
Golden rice is a good example of the bullshit thinking of the GM lobby. It supposedly answers the problem of malnutrition in the third world. For those with a poor diet, feed them golden rice. Marie Antoinette was credited with the phrase 'let them eat cake' during the French Revolution. Now the mantra will be 'let them eat golden rice'. Never mind having a balanced, varied diet.In the first instance reduction of soil erosion.
bananas
golden rice
salt-tolerant rice
oh and who knows what the future will bring in terms of harnessing nature to synthesise blood products etc.
If you live in a cave you always and continually have the right and ability to leave the cave. If somebody else releases GM organisms (animal, vegetable, fungal, insect, bacterial, whatever) into the environment and they turn out to be resilient and harmful, then you are stuck with them. The only people likely to do that are governments and mega-corporations. They are inherently not to be trusted and think mainly in the short term for their own advantage.
No it's not. Anyway, Ned Ludd was alright in my book. Plus, you're talking bollocks. This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone. Some technologies are maybe best not given over almost exclusively to the powerful and greedy. That is the determinant here. GM is very powerful and can be used to our detriment, even accidentally.This is neo-Luddism, isn’t it. The same thinking would’ve prevented the development of every technology known to mankind.
No it's not. Anyway, Ned Ludd was alright in my book. Plus, you're talking bollocks. This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone. Some technologies are maybe best not given over almost exclusively to the powerful and greedy. That is the determinant here. GM is very powerful and can be used to our detriment, even accidentally.
If I'd said that I would agree with you. We're not talking pure research here, but research into areas where some wealthy people see an opportunity to make more money, take more control."Don't research potentially dangerous things".
That's bollocks.
If I'd said that I would agree with you. We're not talking pure research here, but research into areas where some wealthy people see an opportunity to make more money, take more control.
We had all these discussions back in the 1990's and since then it's been kicked into the long grass (in the public arena) and largely forgotten about. There was widespread debate back then and the pro-GM lobby lost. Now they're back with no real discussion, aided and abetted by Johnson and his cronies. Advancing human knowledge and understanding, combatting the effects of climate change, alleviating world hunger - like fuck.
It's supported by, administered by, introduced by people I don't like for the benefit of people I don't like.Ah, the old "it's supported by people I don't like, so fuck the benefits" line.
Diabetics for instance?… for the benefit of people I don't like.
Sorry, I was forgetting that GM will be the answer to all the world's ills. And all the ills that we aren't even aware of yet.Diabetics for instance?
Sorry, I was forgetting that GM will be the answer to all the world's ills. And all the ills that we aren't even aware of yet.
Ah yes. I've seen fields of insulin blowing in the breeze. Feasted on by GM insects and impervious to the effects of climate change. Or was that all in a dream? Maybe the reality involves laboratories and factories rather than the wider environment?Not all of them, but some of them. You're aware that most of the world’s insulin nowadays is genetically engineered?
Ah yes. I've seen fields of insulin blowing in the breeze. Feasted on by GM insects and impervious to the effects of climate change. Or was that all in a dream? Maybe the reality involves laboratories and factories rather than the wider environment?
FWIW I've got multiple objections to GM and how it would have been and might be introduced. The biggest concerns have always been about control of the technology, but also about the effect of the release of GM organisms into the wider environment.
Some is done by universities and state research institutes where they still exist and haven’t been privatised, and not everything they’ve done has been commercialised - some has been offered free for the benefit of humanity. I wish more was done on the lines rather than relying on ‘the market’ which would sooner whiten the teeth of the wealthy than feed starving infants.You could apply that to pretty much anything.
It's expensive research that only wealthy people/companies are able to afford. If you prevented wealthy companies from researching things because you object to people making money, most industries wouldn't exist. No pharmaceuticals, no transport, no power, reduced farming, food ... the list is endless.
There are enormous benefits to be had from GMOs. To get those benefits research is required and who else is going to do it?
What makes me nervous is when I read a defence of gene editing beginning along the lines of "we've been editing genes for thousands of years". This lazy generalisation was used back in the 1990's during the last big debate. It's still being trotted out now. What has changed is that the apologists for the technology now admit that the earlier GM techniques proposed were less accurate and specific and that only genes from the genome in question will be moved around or deleted. So are they now saying "we got it wrong back then"? Or is the current proposal for limited gene editing just the foot in the door to wider genetic modification?